I understand prof. Levison to be saying that no one in Hobby Lobby had its
mind changed on an issue because of the Court's opinion. While that is
true, and may well have been true in Dred Scott, many other cases would
have said his point better (*Roe v. Wade* would be another example of
many). The
Please substitute the words "no readers" for "new readers" in the missive
below. My apologies for the error.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
I'm afraid that what the state RFRA legislation is doing is encourag
I'm afraid that what the state RFRA legislation is doing is encouraging, on the
part of its supporters, an extravagant view of "religious liberty" (just read
some of the material in the Austin, TX newspapers) that will then breed anger
and frustration when "liberal" and "secular" judges interpre
I know there are those who think the Indiana RFRA only protects religious
adherents through an exemption or exception-based regime.
But that is not how everyone will understand it. Some will think of it as a
license to discriminate:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/28/3640221/indiana-bus
If I recall correctly, several years ago there was a suit against a church in
San Francisco for firing an organist (who helps lead a congregation in worship
as he or she plays sacred music), an organist who was, as I recall, a sexually
active gay man. What about the small Christian bookstore lik
Which is sad, as Utah is not unique. It demeans the millions of people who
believe like many Utahans do, and live like they do.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Douglas Laycock
wrote:
> True. And as soon as it was done, they all said it's a terrible bill, the
> deal is unique to Utah, and it's
True. And as soon as it was done, they all said it's a terrible bill, the deal
is unique to Utah, and it's no model for anywhere else.
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:29:41 -0600
Michael Worley wrote:
>To clarify, the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU and Equality Utah all
>endorsed the main Utah bill, SB
To clarify, the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU and Equality Utah all
endorsed the main Utah bill, SB 296.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/after-gop-legislature-passes-s.b.-296-governor-to-sign-key-protections-for
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/a-night-to-celebrate-in-utah
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:
The demand for a total carve out of all civil rights claims goes back to the
debates on the (never enacted) Religious Liberty Protection Act in the late
90s. What was said at length then is still true today,
Antidiscrimination laws generally serve compelling government interests, and to
the ext
Of course those quotes are real. Part of the problem here is conservative
legislators and activists pandering to the base and promising things they can't
deliver.
The fact remains that such cases are not arising (I know of only one, thirty
years ago in Minnesota) and that no one has ever won a
"no one is talking about discrimination against gay and lesbian people as
such"
That assertion is simply incorrect.
In opposing ENDA, the Family Research Council complained that, under it,
"[y]ou can’t decline to hire a homosexual for religious reasons."
Similarly, in opposing the recent Utah leg
11 matches
Mail list logo
