Chip, I have posted very little to the list this week, and I have felt no
obligation to post anything. The letter we sent to Gov. Brewer was hardly a
secret; I got press calls about it from DC to Los Angeles.
It was a busy week, and the list has become pointless, at least on the current
topic. We are hearing lots of repetition, lots of invective, lots of
exaggeration, lots of ridicule and personal attacks. There are exceptions, of
course, and the exceptions are on both sides of the issue.
There is plenty of anti-gay bigotry in the country, but I have heard little of
that on this list. I have heard a fair amount of anti-religious bigotry. I
have heard in many posts a complete and utter unwillingness to give any weight
to conscience, or any weight to the believer's sense that he is violating God's
will and disrupting his relationship with God -- a complete and utter
unwillingness to try to understand how the world looks from the other side.
There are still people who view gays and lesbians with similar contempt, and
even worse, as Jean's story illustrates. But those people are not on this list.
I do not, and have not, vouched for the motives of Arizona Republicans, or for
the Alliance Defending Freedom, or for any other religious group. I defend
their rights, not their views. The letter to Gov. Brewer was a straightforward
legal analysis of the bill, and I stand by it. Both issues addressed by the
bill have been litigated elsewhere in cases not involving gay rights, most
obviously in Hobby Lobby. There is a clear circuit split on whether RFRA
provides a defense to suits by private citizens; the New Mexico case on that
issue involved gay rights, but all or most of the others did not.
I am going to respond to Mr. Green, and then I hope to resume my silence. There
are many tasks that appear more productive than posting to the list in its
current mood. And no, I am not going to name names or cite particular posts as
examples of the characterizations above.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:37:02 -0500
Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote:
>Yes, a sad and disturbing story that Jean tells (perhaps a threat of
>assault, or some other crime). Likewise, a sad story about the evangelists
>that Greg S. tells (rudeness and worse). But neither story is about
>discrimination as the law understands it, because passersby had no legal
>duty to engage in any way with the people they mistreated. We are all free
>to ignore or interact (peacefully) with strangers on the street, whatever
>their political or religious cause, personal appearance, etc. And we are
>all selective in how and when we do engage -- so we discriminate in that
>sense, like we discriminate when we order from a menu.
>
>This is NOT the context of wedding vendor exemptions or marriage license
>clerk exemptions from anti-discrimination norms. Those norms impose a duty
>to serve without selectivity based on race. religion, etc. And those kinds
>of laws are built on a sense that certain groups are vulnerable to
>widespread exclusion from opportunities -- employment, housing, and (where
>the law so provides) the right to purchase goods and services from those
>who hold themselves out to the public as providing such services. So,
>please, let's not get sidetracked with poor analogies to highly sympathetic
>but legally quite different situations.
>
>To Greg S. - your concern for conscription of creative artists
>(photographers?) seems quite legitimate. Perhaps such people should just
>not be covered by anti-discrimination laws at all. But we would have to be
>very careful to define creative artists quite narrowly -- wine vendors,
>caterers, bakers, and most others who serve in the wedding industry should
>NOT fall under that category.
>
>To all list members who signed that letter to Gov. Brewer -- it would have
>been a whole lot better if you had brought that letter to the list's
>attention yourselves. Whether or not you had a duty to disclose it (in
>light of your postings on the subject), norms of professional courtesy and
>candor certainly pointed that way. I'm disappointed that you failed to do
>so.
>
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
