Excellent post, Hillel. I agree with you and also see the current situation as deeply sad and tragic. Alan
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:21 PM, "Hillel Y. Levin" <hillelle...@gmail.com<mailto:hillelle...@gmail.com>> wrote: In an ideal world I would stand with Sandy's plea for magnanimity. I tend towards a compromise view of the world in general, and I believe there could be room for compromise here as well. I'd go even further and say that religious folks and LGBTQ folks are fellow travelers who should be able to find common cause. The history (recent and historical) of repression, discrimination, rejection, victimization, and dehumanization is central to both groups' experiences. Moreover, at their core both groups are engaged in the deep search for truth, meaning, identity, love, and the true self. Would both groups affirm this of the other, I believe there could be common purpose that eclipses that which divides. Unfortunately, in the real world I don't see that happening. Frankly, I lay the blame primarily at the feet of religious conservatives, including some among my own orthodox Jewish coreligionists. For decades and longer, many religious conservatives have (and indeed continue to) denied the basic humanity and dignity of LGBTQ individuals. Not all religious conservatives have, of course, but it has been a constant refrain in our political and social discourse. Too many LGBTQ individuals to count have been cast out of their natural families and their religious families. In my view, this represents both a failure of practical political judgment (the writing was on the wall about SSM and the ascendancy of gay rights at least two decades ago) and a failure of empathy and magnanimity on the part of religious conservatives. One tends to reap what one sows. Most of us, I think, want to be accepted wholly by others. Those who have been consistently victimized and rejected by others are probably more sensitive to dignitary harms that others might brush off or simply accept or ignore. There is something rich and ironic about religious individuals now demanding special treatment and acceptance of their different lifestyles and beliefs from the very people whom they have vilified and continue, in many cases, to vilify. It would be nice for LGBTQ people to turn the other cheek as Sandy suggests; but gee, that's a lot to ask of people. To be clear, I view all of this as deeply, deeply tragic. And it answers neither the constitutional nor the policy questions. But descriptively, that's what I think is going on. When all is said and done, I find it difficult to expect that LGBTQ advocacy groups--now finally enjoying a measure of political success and social acceptance (though by no means complete)--to simply stop demanding full legal and social equality. When they see groups taking actions that would undermine their legal and social standing and dignity, I dont blame them for organizing politically and attempting to stop them in their tracks. I can't fault them for being unmoved by pleas for acceptance, dignity, and space from the very same people (and fellow travelers) who have, and indeed continue to, denied them the same. I hope that one day we will be able to put this tragedy behind us. It is not a surprise to me that Mormons in Utah--who know a thing or two about repression, rejection, dehumanization, and discrimination--were the first to quite publicly and effectively extend a hand. Whatever one thinks of the ultimate product of that effort, the sentiment seems to me to be the right one. The onus is on other, more mainstream religious conservatives who are used to holding political and social clout to extend that hand. I just don't think that day is coming soon. On Monday, April 6, 2015, Levinson, Sanford V <slevin...@law.utexas.edu<mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote: If one treats the issue as "state mandated art" (in the absence of conditional funding, at least), I agree with Mark S. Am I correct in assuming that Mark's caveat doesn't apply to the wedding cake, at least if we're talking about "off the rack" cakes? I assume also this wouldn't apply to the caterers or tent rentals etc. And do we have to decide who is a genuine "artist"? Imagine a caricaturist who often draws pictures of wedding guests as amusing souvenirs. Would she be able to decline the offer of employment? If all of this intense and acrimonious discussion boils down to a few wedding photographers, I'm inclined to say that "we" who support same-sex marriage can afford to be magnanimous in what has clearly become "our" victory. But am I correct in this presumption? Sandy Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 6, 2015, at 6:38 PM, Scarberry, Mark > <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<javascript:;>> wrote: > > In line with Mark's suggestion, let me apologize to Chip for using such > strong language to describe what I believe is an error in his analysis. I > think I adequately explained why reliance on O'Brien is, in my opinion, > clearly wrong in this case. List members can reach their own conclusions. > Again let me apologize for using such strong language. > > I continue to believe that requiring people to create art that sends a > state-mandated message is more than troubling. Such a power in the state, if > generalized, will eventually lead to a broader authoritarian result that few > of us on this list - probably none - will like. I specifically said that Chip > would not favor such an authoritarian result. > > With regard to the letter, I will add only a few comments to Doug's. > > The Supreme Court did copy the non-profit accommodation in the relevant > sense, as did Justice Kennedy in his concurrence: "[T]here is an existing, > recognized, workable, and already-implemented framework to provide coverage." > I think it was clear that the Court was requiring the administration to give > the same accommodation to Hobby Lobby and the Greens. It was also clear, I > think, that the administration had not yet implemented it, else there would > have been no need for the Court to rule against the administration. > > I would have hoped that there might be more voices from those on the other > side of this issue to temper the overstatements made by politicians and > commentators with regard to the likely effect of a state RFRA. > > Mark > > Mark S. Scarberry > Professor of Law > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<javascript:;> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<javascript:;>] On Behalf Of > Graber, Mark > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:48 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights > > May I suggest that we return to the decorum that has more often than not > characterized this list. The best conclusion I can draw from the various > emails is that the issues are more difficult to many of us than they appear > to others and that RFRA is the classic example of a statue drawn with some > examples in mind that is now being applied to circumstances some people claim > is nearly identical to the original paradigm cases and some think is quite > different. > > MAG > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<javascript:;> 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. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<javascript:;> > 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. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<javascript:;> 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. -- Hillel Y. Levin Associate Professor University of Georgia School of Law 120 Herty Dr. Athens, GA 30602 (678) 641-7452 hle...@uga.edu<mailto:hle...@uga.edu> hillelle...@gmail.com<mailto:hillelle...@gmail.com> SSRN Author Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=466645 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
