I just read the amicus brief in the Arlene's Flowers case. What struck me, in
addition to the points already raised, was that the brief did not distinguish
between religious opposition to the wedding and religious opposition to the
marriage.
Oftentimes, religious opposition to same-sex weddin
Agreed on all fronts, Marty.
I would just add this regarding the observation that Stutzman "purportedly
doesn't care about what Robert Ingersoll's sexual orientation is, or
whether he has sex with Curt Freed."
Whatever may the source of opposition to same-sex marriage in specific
cases, the avail
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Responding to Eugene's question -- I don't have anythi
Eugene
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:29 AM
> *To:* Mitchell Berman
> *Cc:* David Bernstein ; Law & Religion issues for Law
>
Thanks, Jim. I'd be *very *surprised if the Washington Supreme Court
decides otherwise. But even apart from the absence of any prospect of
success, what's so striking about the scholars' amicus brief is that it
doesn't even try to contend with this Colorado decision, or with most of
the Supreme C
In case it's of interest, I believe the most extensive judicial discussion
of this issue to date comes from the Colorado Court of Appeals in the
Masterpiece Caskeshop case:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opini
on/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf (pages 12-23).
In concluding that a refu
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Outside of this context (in the context of licensing) and before these kinds of
issues arose, I argued that flower arranging, even by a grocery store employee,
is speech for 1st Amendment purposes, because th
issues for Law Academics
; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Mitch Berman's good question asks in general terms about how much "solicitude"
Fred's claim deserves. But we cannot answer intelligently un
sues for Law Academics
; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Mitch Berman's good question asks in general terms about how much "solicitude"
Fred's claim deserves. But we cannot answer intelligently unless we kn
edu>
[mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of David Bernstein
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Marty Lederman mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>>;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu&g
Eric J Segall
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: David Bernstein ; Mitchell Berman
; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
I am receptive to trying to draw lines between commerc
On Behalf Of David Bernstein
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Marty Lederman mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>>;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu>; Law & Religion
issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re:
t; Mitch Berman
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *David Bernstein
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:00 AM
> *To:* Marty Lederman ; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu;
> Law & Religion issu
The argument that the definition of marriage centers on the sex of the spouses
and not their sexual orientation was a point that was in fact noticed and
discussed by the Court.
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, I'm -- I'm not sure it's necessary to get into
sexual orientation to resolve the cas
& Religion issues for Law Academics ;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Doug, I think you make a good argument. I have two quibbles. The statement that
a wedding is an "inherently religious context" does not describe
4-243-8546
From: Eric J Segall [eseg...@gsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
I fai
ts.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu ] *On Behalf Of *Samuel
> Bagenstos
> *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2016 5:15 PM
> *To:* John Q. Barrett
> *Cc:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ;
> conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Noteworthy, puzzli
: Monday, October 10, 2016 5:15 PM
To: John Q. Barrett
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
In other words, if Ollie sells BBQ to black customers at a takeout window and
refuses to s
[The following is a hypothetical only, as I don’t pretend to know everything
about the parties and their views.]
Suppose that you are a solo law practitioner in the town where Arlene’s Flowers
is located. You have long known that Barronelle Stutzman has strong
traditionalist religious views, v
19 matches
Mail list logo
