Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
I am curious too. Do you take issue with his theology or do you think his
refusal to defend the law presents an Establishment Clause problem, or
something else?
Roger Severino
On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:09, Michael Worley
mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> wrote:
Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman
mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to carry out
Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy
neighbor."
Sigh.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M.
mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu>> wrote:
Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will not
appeal Judge Reeves' decision
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu<mailto:masin...@nova.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all religious
beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to Islam,
and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a large
percentage of the republican caucus in the House. Isn’t the entire exercise
just political chumming?
Mike
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed.
That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523 went
beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50 ("Some
Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith prevents them
from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith marriage Why
should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed to recuse from
issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while her coworkers have
the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I
think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand protection to all religious
beliefs about marriage. So extended, however, the bill would likely lose any
chance it previously may have had of passing in the House.
The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the priorities
of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though exemption bills and
(2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's statement indicates that
there will be reluctance among some FADA supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve
#1.
- Jim
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter
mailto:masin...@nova.edu>> wrote:
The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction against
enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined enforcement of HB
1523 in part because, in his view, it created a discriminatory religious
preference, protecting those who for religious reasons opposed same sex
marriage but not those who for religious reasons favored it. Although the
state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay of his injunction pending
appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought it wise to account for it lest
it fail in the House even before facing certain death in the Senate.
Mike
Michael R. Masinter
Professor of Law
Nova Southeastern University
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
954.262.6151
masin...@nova.edu<mailto:masin...@nova.edu>
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the
change described below.
https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee
endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from
its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the
revised
Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Should he either do his job or resign?
On Thursday, July 14, 2016, Roger Severino wrote:
> I am curious too. Do you take issue with his theology or do you think his
> refusal to defend the law presents an Establishment Clause problem, or
> something else?
>
> Roger Severino
>
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:09, Michael Worley > wrote:
>
> Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman > wrote:
>
>> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
>> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
>> love thy neighbor."
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
>> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
>>> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>>>
>>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> [
>>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> ]
>>> on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu
>>> ]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>>
>>> Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all
>>> religious beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs
>>> specific to Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA
>>> supporters and a large percentage of the republican caucus in the House.
>>> Isn’t the entire exercise just political chumming?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>>
>>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> ] *On
>>> Behalf Of *James Oleske
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <
>>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>> >
>>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB
>>> 1523 went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op.
>>> at 50 ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their
>>> faith prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an
>>> interfaith marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not
>>> be allowed to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith
>>> couple, while her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To
>>> fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have
>>> had to expand protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So
>>> extended, however, the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may
>>> have had of passing in the House.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
>>> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
>>> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
>>> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
>>> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
>>> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined
>>> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
>>> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
>>> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
>>> favored it. Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
>>> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
>>> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
>>> certain death in the Senate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman
wrote:
> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
> love thy neighbor."
>
> Sigh.
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
>> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>>
>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>>
>> --
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [
>> masin...@nova.edu]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>
>> Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all
>> religious beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs
>> specific to Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA
>> supporters and a large percentage of the republican caucus in the House.
>> Isn’t the entire exercise just political chumming?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >
>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523
>> went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50
>> ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith
>> prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith
>> marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed
>> to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while
>> her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address
>> Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand
>> protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So extended, however,
>> the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may have had of passing
>> in the House.
>>
>>
>>
>> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
>> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
>> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
>> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
>> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter
>> wrote:
>>
>> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
>> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined
>> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
>> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
>> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
>> favored it. Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
>> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
>> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
>> certain death in the Senate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael R. Masinter
>>
>> Professor of Law
>>
>> Nova Southeastern University
>>
>> 3305 College Avenue
>>
>> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
>>
>> 954.262.6151
>>
>> masin...@nova.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >
>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>
>>
>>
>> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due
>> to the change described below.
>>
>>
>>
>&g
Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to carry
out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy
neighbor."
Sigh.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:
> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>
> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>
> --
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [
> masin...@nova.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
> Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all religious
> beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to
> Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a
> large percentage of the republican caucus in the House. Isn’t the entire
> exercise just political chumming?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523
> went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50
> ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith
> prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith
> marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed
> to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while
> her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address
> Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand
> protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So extended, however,
> the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may have had of passing
> in the House.
>
>
>
> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
>
>
>
> - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter
> wrote:
>
> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined
> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
> favored it. Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
> certain death in the Senate.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael R. Masinter
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Nova Southeastern University
>
> 3305 College Avenue
>
> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
>
> 954.262.6151
>
> masin...@nova.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
>
>
> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to
> the change described below.
>
>
>
> https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
>
>
>
> It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform
> Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting
> messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides"
> aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has
> led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill).
>
>
>
> - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske wrote:
>
> In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense
>
RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will not
appeal Judge Reeves' decision
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all religious
beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to Islam,
and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a large
percentage of the republican caucus in the House. Isn’t the entire exercise
just political chumming?
Mike
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed.
That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523 went
beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50 ("Some
Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith prevents them
from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith marriage Why
should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed to recuse from
issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while her coworkers have
the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I
think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand protection to all religious
beliefs about marriage. So extended, however, the bill would likely lose any
chance it previously may have had of passing in the House.
The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the priorities
of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though exemption bills and
(2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's statement indicates that
there will be reluctance among some FADA supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve
#1.
- Jim
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter
mailto:masin...@nova.edu>> wrote:
The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction against
enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined enforcement of HB
1523 in part because, in his view, it created a discriminatory religious
preference, protecting those who for religious reasons opposed same sex
marriage but not those who for religious reasons favored it. Although the
state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay of his injunction pending
appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought it wise to account for it lest
it fail in the House even before facing certain death in the Senate.
Mike
Michael R. Masinter
Professor of Law
Nova Southeastern University
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
954.262.6151
masin...@nova.edu<mailto:masin...@nova.edu>
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the
change described below.
https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee
endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from
its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the
revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has led FRC to withdraw
its support of the bill).
- Jim
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske
mailto:jole...@lclark.edu>> wrote:
In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense Act
(FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been some
confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this confusion is
the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither (1) the
introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available on
Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator Lee last
September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to exclude
federal employees working within the scope of employment, for-profit federal
contractors operating within the scope of their contract, and medical providers
with respect to issues of visitation and provision of care.
The version discussed at the hearing i
RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all religious
beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to Islam,
and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a large
percentage of the republican caucus in the House. Isn’t the entire exercise
just political chumming?
Mike
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed.
That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523 went
beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50 ("Some
Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith prevents them
from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith marriage Why
should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed to recuse from
issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while her coworkers have
the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I
think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand protection to all religious
beliefs about marriage. So extended, however, the bill would likely lose any
chance it previously may have had of passing in the House.
The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the priorities
of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though exemption bills and
(2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's statement indicates that
there will be reluctance among some FADA supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve
#1.
- Jim
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter
mailto:masin...@nova.edu>> wrote:
The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction against
enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined enforcement of HB
1523 in part because, in his view, it created a discriminatory religious
preference, protecting those who for religious reasons opposed same sex
marriage but not those who for religious reasons favored it. Although the
state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay of his injunction pending
appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought it wise to account for it lest
it fail in the House even before facing certain death in the Senate.
Mike
Michael R. Masinter
Professor of Law
Nova Southeastern University
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
954.262.6151
masin...@nova.edu<mailto:masin...@nova.edu>
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the
change described below.
https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee
endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from
its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the
revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has led FRC to withdraw
its support of the bill).
- Jim
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske
mailto:jole...@lclark.edu>> wrote:
In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense Act
(FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been some
confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this confusion is
the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither (1) the
introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available on
Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator Lee last
September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to exclude
federal employees working within the scope of employment, for-profit federal
contractors operating within the scope of their contract, and medical providers
with respect to issues of visitation and provision of care.
The version discussed at the hearing is available here:
https://labrador.house.gov/uploads/First%20Amendment%20Defense%20Act%20-%20H.R.%202802%20-%20Revised%20ANS%20-%207-7-16.pdf
In addition to including the modifications proposed by Senator Lee last
September, the newest proposal appears designed to address concerns about
viewpoint discrimination and equal protection by making the following
modification to the first paragraph of the bill's operative section (new
provision in all caps):
"Notwithstanding any other provision
Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Agreed.
That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523
went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50
("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith
prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith
marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed
to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while
her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address
Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand
protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So extended, however,
the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may have had of passing
in the House.
The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
- Jim
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter wrote:
> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined
> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
> favored it. Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
> certain death in the Senate.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael R. Masinter
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Nova Southeastern University
>
> 3305 College Avenue
>
> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
>
> 954.262.6151
>
> masin...@nova.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
>
>
> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to
> the change described below.
>
>
>
> https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
>
>
>
> It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform
> Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting
> messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides"
> aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has
> led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill).
>
>
>
> - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske wrote:
>
> In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense
> Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been
> some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this
> confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither
> (1) the introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available
> on Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator
> Lee last September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to
> exclude federal employees working within the scope of employment,
> for-profit federal contractors operating within the scope of their
> contract, and medical providers with respect to issues of visitation and
> provision of care.
>
>
>
> The version discussed at the hearing is available here:
>
>
>
>
> https://labrador.house.gov/uploads/First%20Amendment%20Defense%20Act%20-%20H.R.%202802%20-%20Revised%20ANS%20-%207-7-16.pdf
>
>
>
> In addition to including the modifications proposed by Senator Lee last
> September, the newest proposal appears designed to address concerns about
> viewpoint discrimination and equal protection by making the following
> modification to the first paragraph of the bill's operative section (new
> provision in all caps):
>
>
>
> "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall
> not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on
> the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a
> sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (1) marriage is or
> should be recognized as the union of (A) two individuals of the opposite
> sex; or (B)
RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons favored it. Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing certain death in the Senate. Mike Michael R. Masinter Professor of Law Nova Southeastern University 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 954.262.6151 masin...@nova.edu From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the change described below. https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill). - Jim On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske mailto:jole...@lclark.edu>> wrote: In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither (1) the introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available on Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator Lee last September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to exclude federal employees working within the scope of employment, for-profit federal contractors operating within the scope of their contract, and medical providers with respect to issues of visitation and provision of care. The version discussed at the hearing is available here: https://labrador.house.gov/uploads/First%20Amendment%20Defense%20Act%20-%20H.R.%202802%20-%20Revised%20ANS%20-%207-7-16.pdf In addition to including the modifications proposed by Senator Lee last September, the newest proposal appears designed to address concerns about viewpoint discrimination and equal protection by making the following modification to the first paragraph of the bill's operative section (new provision in all caps): "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of (A) two individuals of the opposite sex; or (B) TWO INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX; or (2) extramarital relations are improper." As previously discussed on the list, "discriminatory action" is defined to include, among other things, "caus[ing] any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against." Under this latest modification to FADA, those with religious objections to facilitating opposite sex marriage (if any such individuals or entities exist) would have the same protection as those with religious objections to facilitating same-sex marriage. The bill's findings (Section 2) remain focused on religious objections to same-sex marriage. - Jim ___ 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.
Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the change described below. https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill). - Jim On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske wrote: > In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense > Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been > some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this > confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither > (1) the introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available > on Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator > Lee last September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to > exclude federal employees working within the scope of employment, > for-profit federal contractors operating within the scope of their > contract, and medical providers with respect to issues of visitation and > provision of care. > > The version discussed at the hearing is available here: > > > https://labrador.house.gov/uploads/First%20Amendment%20Defense%20Act%20-%20H.R.%202802%20-%20Revised%20ANS%20-%207-7-16.pdf > > In addition to including the modifications proposed by Senator Lee last > September, the newest proposal appears designed to address concerns about > viewpoint discrimination and equal protection by making the following > modification to the first paragraph of the bill's operative section (new > provision in all caps): > > "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall > not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on > the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a > sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (1) marriage is or > should be recognized as the union of (A) two individuals of the opposite > sex; or (B) TWO INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX; or (2) extramarital relations > are improper." > > As previously discussed on the list, "discriminatory action" is defined to > include, among other things, "caus[ing] any tax, penalty, or payment to be > assessed against." > > Under this latest modification to FADA, those with religious objections to > facilitating opposite sex marriage (if any such individuals or entities > exist) would have the same protection as those with religious objections to > facilitating same-sex marriage. > > The bill's findings (Section 2) remain focused on religious objections to > same-sex marriage. > > - Jim > ___ 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.
