Re: The End of NY's Kosher Inspectors

[rabbimsimon]

I believe the NY case was Commack Self-Serv. Kosher
Meats, Inc. v. Weiss, 294 F.3d 415, 418 (2d Cir. 2002) 



 



Last August Professor Friedman posted a story on a
lawsuit filed by a Conservative rabbi challenging the constitutionality of
Georgia's Kosher Food Labeling Act on the grounds that the law provides that
food can only bear a kosher label if it meets "Orthodox Hebrew religious
rules and requirements."



In other words the State of Georgia has chosen to use an "Orthodox"
definition of kashrut. This poses a significant Establishment Clause problem.
Why is the State taking a particular religious definition of kashrut? Forget
Orthodox vis a vis Conservative for a minute. What about various strains of
Orthodoxy? Is Hebrew National not kosher because it has a Triangle K and not an
OU?



 



While the idea of the government protecting the kosher
consumer from fraud is commendable, over the years a number of similar laws in
New York, Maryland and New Jersey have been struck down by the courts for this
very reason. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said, requiring businesses to
comply with a particular Jewish religious standard "inextricably"
entangled Jewish law with secular law. When challenged, the state has no choice
but to determine what the true definition of kashrut is. It must choose between
Rabbi A's definition and Rabbi B's definition. And that is something the state
should never be put in a position of doing.



Kosher food laws should not be based on any one particular religious standard
to determine whether it's kosher or not, especially because there is no
standard universally agreed upon within the Jewish community. Instead, kosher
fraud laws should rely on full disclosure made by the seller. A kosher fraud
law should state that anyone selling kosher food is required to disclose the
basis upon which that claim is made. In other words, if Butcher Z says I am
selling kosher meat then he must produce some documentation from Rabbi A
attesting to its kashrut. If a consumer trusts Rabbi A then he will buy from
Butcher Z. If not, armed with all the facts and with full disclosure, he can go
across the street to Butcher X who discloses that his products are under the
supervision of Rabbi B.



The state's only involvement in enforcing these laws would be to see if the
food sold is in compliance with that disclosure statement, not whether it is in
compliance with "Orthodox Hebrew law." This solution still allows the
state to fulfill its goal of protecting consumers from fraud while not
entangling it in religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause in
the process.





Rabbi Michael Simon
Temple Beth Kodesh
Boynton Beach, Fl
(954) 257-6159
www.TempleBethKodesh.org
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=72595149028



-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern 
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' 
Sent: Wed, Jan 5, 2011 5:27 pm
Subject: RE: The End of NY's Kosher Inspectors




































The first permanent Kosher law was enacted
in NY in 1917 to combat what was then rampant an open fraud in the sale of
kosher meat( Its constitutionality against a due process vagueness challenge
was upheld by the US Supreme Court.). I summarized this history in an article I
wrote in the journal Judaism about 15 years ago ,but it is not available on
line.(Kent Greenawalt wrote something subsequently.) There is also a good but
hard to get book on the subject whose name   I would have to dig out.
More recently, the New York, New
 Jersey, Maryland (Baltimore) and Georgia laws were invalidated because
they allowed the state to decide a religious question-was the food kosher. Now
all states work on the basis of mandatory disclosure statements and the inspectors
simply police the presence and accuracy of those statements.



 






Marc D. Stern



Associate General Counsel



for Legal Advocacy





ste...@ajc.org

212.891.1480



646.287.2606 (cell)



 







 



 



NOTICE



This email may contain confidential and/or
privileged material and is intended for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you
have received this email in error and that any use, disclosure, copying,
distribution or other transmission is prohibited, improper and may be unlawful.
 If you have received this email in error, you must destroy this email and
kindly notify the sender by reply email.  If this email contains the word
CONFIDENTIAL in its Subject line, then even a valid recipient must hold it in
confidence and not distribute or disclose it. In such case ONLY the author of
the email has permission to forward or otherwise distribute it or disclose its
contents to others.



 



 

















From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul


Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011
05:21

To: Law
 & Religion issues for Law Ac

JFS Decision by Britain Supreme Court

[rabbimsimon]

I'm wondering if anyone on this list has any thoughts about this case

Here's a link from Prof Friedmans site

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/12/britains-supreme-court-holds-jewish.html

thank you


Rabbi Michael Simon 
Temple Beth Kodesh 
Boynton Beach, Fl (954) 257-6159 
www.TempleBethKodesh.org
http://www.facebook.com/RabbiMichaelSimon
http://simonsense.blogspot.com



-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene 
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' 
Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Subject: FW from Chip Lupu: Elane Photography



-Original Message-
rom: Ira (Chip) Lupu [mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu] 
ent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:19 PM
o: Volokh, Eugene
ubject: Elane Photography
Eugene:
I'm at a computer from which I cannot post to the list.  But here's one 
question 
bout your compelling interest argument re: New Mexico RFRA  -- What difference 
oes it make that  NM does not legally recognize same-sex marriage?  The claim 
ere is about the refusal of a commercial photographer to perform her offered 
rofessional service at a ceremony.  It happens to be a wedding ceremony, but 
ts legal significance (or absence of legal significance) has absolutely nothing 
o do with the claim.  The state protects gays and lesbians against 
iscrimination in private markets for goods and services, and this claim arises 
n one of those markets.
Chip
Ira C. Lupu
. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
eorge Washington University Law School
000 H St., NW 
ashington, DC 20052
202)994-7053
y SSRN papers are here:
ttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
___
o post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
o subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
ttp://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
nyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
ead the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
essages 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.