Re: Making sense of Hosanna-Tabor (and the absurd nursing-worshipper hypo)

Hosanna-Tabor is an easy case once you decide that the person is within the category of minister and the unanimity is not surprising on those facts. Contrary to the assertions of some, liberals do not respond in knee-jerk pavlovian fashion in favor of government regulation of any and all sorts

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

f > the First Amendment, that the state may not resolve exclusively > ecclesiastical questions. See generally Lupu & Tuttle, The Mystery of > Unanimity in [Hosanna-Tabor], 20 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1265 > (2017),https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/23330-204lupu-tuttlearticle7pdf > <

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

: 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 Steven Jamar > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:13 AM > To: Law Religion & Law List &

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

eligionlaw-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 Steven Jamar > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:49 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academic

Church excludes nursing woman

If RFRA applied to the state, or if Virginia had a state RFRA that copied the federal RFRA, would this state law be legal? Virginia law provides that a woman can breast feed uncovered anywhere she has a legal right to be. Can a church then exclude her because breast feeding uncovered might

Re: Bible classes in elementary schools

I do an informal raise your hand sort of survey of those students in my con law class who had in-public-school instruction in Christianity in elementary school. It ranges from a low of 15% to around 50% each year. Once a student asked me if Catholicism counted as Christian. In that case it was

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

t;mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:20 PM > To: Law Religion & Law List > Subject: Re: Scalia's views o

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

I never read Smith that way — it was a straight up carte blanche to the legislative and executive branches provided the law was neutral and generally applicable — no weighing of competing interests involved. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International

Re: Successful RFRA defense in EEOC case against funeral home that fired a male-to-female transgender employee for insisting on wearing a skirt suit to work

I supported RFRA for years. I am becoming a supporter of Smith. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Programs Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org http://sdjlaw.org "Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope,

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

Does motive for treating people differently on the basis of sex matter? Surely. Separate bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports teams, for example. Those three examples are justified on the basis of other interests such as cultural norms of privacy and “decency” and on genuine gender-linked,

Re: speech and religion hypothetical

un...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>> on behalf of Steven Jamar > <stevenja...@gmail.com <mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Friday, April 22,

Re: speech and religion hypothetical

Oh oh. Eugene and I agree completely on something! Protesters in a limited designated public forum are not engaging in protected activity. There is no constitutional right to disrupt another’s speech in such a setting. If the school refused to give the protesters a forum at all, that would

FSM not recognized as a religion for 1st Amendment purposes

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pastafarianism-is-still-not-a-legally-recognized-religion-in-the-united-statesyet?utm_medium=email_source=digg

California seal cross

I assume this is correct under the facts here — but if it were on the seal continuously from 100+ years ago, I assume it would be ok. But here, with it being off, then being put back on, it gets the feel religious motivation/intent/purpose, running afoul of Lemon. Thoughts?

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

I think it is wrong to treat enforcement mechanisms as the sine qua non of whether something is law. > On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Finkelman, Paul > wrote: > > I think David has it exactly right. If the law says you cannot use the mens > room with a birth

State RFRAs and Breyer's balancing test

Have any state RFRA sought to use a non-strict scrutiny balancing approach under which the weight of the interest of the religious exceptionalist, the state’s interest, and the employers/public accomodations/etc. interest are weighed to assess the proper outcome? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar

namaste and yoga banned

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/24/ga-parents-offended-by-the-far-east-religion-of-yoga-get-namaste-banned-from-school/ -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Programs Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice

In re Tam and CLS

Not really wanting to restart this issue, but in re-reading CLS v. Martinez, I came across this gem: "The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

; doctrine or longstanding tradition allowing legislative accommodation of >> religion? See Cutter ("Religious accommodations ... need not 'come packaged >> with benefits to secular entities'"). >> >> >> >> - Jim >> >> >> >> > ___

Re: help wanted

t; <http://www.nrla.com/> > > Championing Religious Freedom and Human Rights > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun..

Re: help wanted

law?" > > Interesting question, but like the computer said in War Games, perhaps "the > only way to win is not to play." > > Ed Darrell > Dallas > > > From: Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> > To: Law Religion & Law List <religionlaw@l

help wanted

How might Congress draft a federal law that requires states to accommodate religious beliefs so that state employees are free to refuse to perform tasks that are contrary to their religious beliefs? We have the Boerne problems of making a record and RFRA being held to be too much of a

Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

Seems to me there is an establishment problem here. Cheerleaders are sponsored by the school and are displaying religious messages to a captive audience who could choose to forego attending the game or else putting up with the religious banners. Has the free speech approach become so dominant

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

decisions. > > Sandy > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 17, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com > <mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> It seems to me that the play-in-the-joints theory and providing >> accommodations bet

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

It seems to me that the play-in-the-joints theory and providing accommodations between exercise and establishment shoiuld win out in this instance thereby upholding the Missouri Constitutional ban on direct and indirect financial support for religious organizations. A ruling that pushes the

Re: Research Queries

I didn’t think we had respect within our discipline or influence within our discipline through law reviews generally! :) > On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Conkle, Daniel O. wrote: > > A colleague of mine, who is working on an interdisciplinary book, has asked > me for ideas

Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

I think too much is made about the difficulty of deciding who is or who is not a member of a religion. First, self-identification would handle most cases. Second, a simple questionaire of just a few key points would be sufficient to identify a Muslim — unless the person was lying, but pretty

Satanists take the field

cross posted con law profs and law and religion listserves 1. Does assistant coach Kennedy have the right to lead prayers after football games? 2. Does assistant coach Kennedy have the right to personally publicly pray at midfield after football games? 3. Do the Satanists and

Re: Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

The underlying theory is exactly the same — complicity with evil. Once the naked assertion is made, it is, after Hobby Lobby, uncontestable by the government or courts. Analogizing and distinguishing are tricky, manipulable rhetorical devices. But you can’t dodge the similarities just

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

I didn’t think the complicity argument was plausible until Hobby Lobby said otherwise. > On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Masinter > wrote: > > What plausible reading of religious freedom empowers Ms. Davis to prohibit > her deputies from issuing marriage

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

I think Eugene’s careful dissecting out the EP aspect is misguided, especially after Olbergefell’s careful consideration of both EP and SDP in this sort of same-sex marriage context. I agree that the denial of the right to marry is sufficient to support the injunction — Davis is denying that

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

gt; philosophical judgment, Muslims are free to do based on their religious > judgment. > >Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religion

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

ilto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 3:36 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene > > I think Steve gets it exactly right. > > > > Sent from my iPhone

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

gt;> http://amzn.to/15f7bLH <http://amzn.to/15f7bLH> >>> >>> You can view my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at >>> the following >>> URL: http://ssrn.com/author=345249 <http://ssrn.com/author=345249> >>> >>

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

Thank you for posting the extended exerpt, Eugene. I disagree with you on one point in particular — if the state has chosen to use counties, then it has chosen to use counties, not regional offices. It could choose to use another method — regional offices — and the district court did not

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

Mark and I disagree about the nature of animus and bias in the violation of constitutional rights. I think the source of her bias is not relevant to the 14th Amendment analysis; he thinks it is. She is treating all couples the same only because she thinks that insulates her from liability

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

Mark, are you claiming that her religious-based bias against same sex couples is ok under the 14th Amendment? This sort of bias has been repeatedly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as inherently unreasonable. Again, see Cleburne. If her original position had been as nuanced as

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

Even if she is acting in accordance with her understanding of state law, she cannot violate the federal constitution in doing so, and any state law that is violation of the federal constitution is not, well, constitutional. State RFRA cannot override the United States Constitution. Period.

Re: Kay Davis and Title VII

I still dislike Smith. I think the ability of the court to allow play in the joints under Sherbert/Yoder was superior to both Smith and RFRA especially given how the court applied RFRA in Hobby Lobby. If the choice is between Hobby Lobby and any claim of complicity being treated as cognizable

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

I don’t know that anyone can really know the extent of their biases influencing their thinking. Deep things like being a trained historian vs. an engineer can infect how we view the law. Life experiences — poor or rich, elite or marginal, black, white or other, etc. surely impact how we view

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

She is motivated by prejudice against same sex couples. Her motivation for that is not relevant under what I thought to be well settled and noncontroversial equal protection jurisprudence. She has no rational reason to treat same sex couples differently from opposite sex couples under the law.

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

And so back to attenuation, proximate cause (remember Palsgraf?), and complicity with evil and metaphysical triggers like telling someone that you want to opt out being equated to being forced to physically distribute contraceptives. No sale. Steve On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:07 PM, Michael

Re: law suit on behalf of Jesus

Everyone knows that God’s domicile for jurisdictional purpose is Minnesota, aka, God’s country. Steve On May 6, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Jeremy Mallory jeremy.mall...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm. I wonder if this means that God is now subject to personal jurisdiction in Nebraska. Ernest Chambers will

Re: Gordon College v. Bob Jones Redux v. Conflicts Actually Likely to Arise

There is a serious asymmetry here, it seems to me. Many expressions of concern about the religious being persecuted by the new norm of respect for those with same-sex orientation with little recognition of the decades/centuries of those self same religious adherents persecuting those with a

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

Is there an IRS provision that would require the loss of tax exempt status as in Bob Jones? On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:39 PM, Brad Pardee bp51...@windstream.net wrote: In an article from the Weekly Standard, the question was raised about the implications for religious organizations losing their

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

If I understand the question correctly, the question is whether standards will change and whether new demands will be made at some time in the future? The answer is “of course.” Of course people will agitate for more. And others will ask will ask for more. Witness the religious claims of

Re: Colorado bakery case - No violation of non-discimination laws for refusal to bake cake with anti-gay message

If the state requires you to bake a cake, bake two. Matthew 5:41 It is verses like this that make it hard for me to credit the complicity with evil argument underlying all of these religious objections. But I know the first amendment does not protect actual Christianity because there is no

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

The benefits of clarity in regulation are that it obviates the need for litigation and it allows for compromise among disparate and often competing interests as well as allowing for compromise of competing values. If a law specifically exempts a well-defined business or entity, then the very

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Interesting articles in the Washington Post on the Indiana brouhaha. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-pence-defends-religious-freedom-bill-amid-continued-criticism/2015/03/29/c8174cbe-d63a-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html Gov. Pence points out that there are many misunderstandings and

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

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:

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

If the Hobby Lobby decision that complicity with evil simpliciter, no matter how attenuated, is a substantial burden is followed, then the fears about state RFRAs will be realized. If however, the (in my judgment vain) attempt by Justice Alito to tie the substantiality of the burden to the

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

“No one”? Well, maybe not its more sensible advocates. On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Ryan T. Anderson ryantimothyander...@gmail.com wrote: What you call discriminate I call freedom to operate in public square in accordance with well-founded beliefs about marriage. As Doug pointed out, no

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Interesting that you think that people who want to use this legislationl to discrimiate will wait until July to do so. On Mar 27, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Kniffin, Eric N. eknif...@lrrlaw.com wrote: I would caution against reading too much into a reactionary statement from the NCAA’s Director of

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Paul’s point is supported by those Christians who interpret “shall not be unevenly yoked” broadly as requiring separation — including discrimination against others of other beliefs. I have relatives who (formerly) were of exactly this belief and know some Christians who still adhere to them.

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

There is a big difference between a regime where the law says you cannot or should not and a law that says its ok in the way people respond. Most people do not sue most of the time every time their rights are infringed, so the “show me the cases” standard seems a bit off to me. Nonetheless, I

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

I thought Smith was wrong at the time. I now think it is mostly right albeit with an unworkable, even naive standard of “neutral and generally applicable” — which was and is meaningless in a regime of accommodations (how are such laws neutral or generally applicable?). But the idea that

Re: Wedding photographers as creators of art

Not all bases of discrimination are the same and not all businesses are the same. Discrimination based on the target’s immutable characteristics (race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is not the same as one based on a difference in beliefs — political, religious, moral. A

Re: Oklahoma bill would protect clergy who won't perform gay marriages

I think one will see all sorts of errors — like those going the other way in Alabama right now. And like those teachers and administrators who wrongly prohibit kids from private prayer before lunch or from reading the Bible in free reading time. And ironically some of the mistakes will be

Re: Homeschooling, vaccinations, and Yoder

Penn Teller illustrate the value of vaccinations. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/01/watch-2-magicians-destroy-anti-vaccine-movement-90-seconds.html -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Howard University School of Law vox: 202-806-8017 fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org

Re: [Ipprofs] Souix Falls Jesus Christ snow plows

Sorry to cloud the issue with facts, but since the first posting, I've learned that there are a number of snowplow blades with various messages on them — not all Christian evangelism. http://siouxfalls.org/active-projects/special-projects/paint-the-plows/Gallery/havey-dunn.aspx So, does

Souix Falls Jesus Christ snow plows

The seems to be a pretty clear case of violating the establishment clause AND the trademark rights of Coca Cola. http://godsnotdeadthemovie.com/blog/gods-dead-sioux-falls/ -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for

Re: I would not have enacted this statute - Justice Scalia on RLUIPA

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Abraham Lincoln On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: I appreciate the comments of others to the effect of I would not have enacted . . = stupid or silly. Note that the Supreme Court must take

Re: Is it possible that rights of both same-sex couples and vendors who object on religious grounds could be protected?

Don’t some public accomodations laws reach vendors — even though employment discrimination laws don’t? I don’t know that the federal law does, but surely some states’ laws do. On Oct 9, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Michael Peabody peabody...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings, Please forgive me if this has

Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument

On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu wrote: And of course a fair number of questions about how to reconcile deference with compelling interest and least restrictive means. That is a genuine puzzle. sarcasm I’m shocked that anyone could have trouble with this

Re: science professor lecture

How would it not be constitutional? What possible theory? On Sep 28, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Marc Stern ste...@ajc.org wrote: Today's NY Times Review section has an article by a professor of evolutionary biology at a public university describing a lecture he gives annually explaining how that

athiest prevented from reenlisting in the air force

Surely this is an easy case? http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/atheist_who_wouldnt_take_so_help_me_god_oath_isnt_allowed_to_reenlist_group/?utm_source=maestroutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=weekly_email -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International

Justices as historians, social scientists, or advocates

The justices are woeful historians — but this is understandable given that our discipline is rhetorical, not truth-based. We are trained to find support for our positions and to push that support and the inferences from it as far as we can to support our conclusions. The justices, in their

Re: Untangling the confusion of the Wheaton College order

Yes. We are not only deep into an accommodationist regime, but the complicity theory immunizes religious claims from examination except for sincerity. Attenuation could be adopted in a later case, but if it is not attenuated in HL, then it is hard to see where it would be. And as we all

Re: Untangling the confusion of the Wheaton College order

I was using accommodation as distinguished from separation or coercion or neutrality as guiding principles. I think that is somewhat different from Sandy’s point. I think Sandy’s point about the decline of the understanding of government and civil society as being (largely) based on reason,

Re: Hobby Lobby Question

not represent the views of my employer. Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote: The court accepts without inquiry the assertion that the complicity with evil theory is the problem that leads

Re: Hobby Lobby Question

that question, as an empirical matter, in this case. Art Spitzer Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote: Brown eliminated the constitutional doctrine of separate but equal

Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question

Religion-in-employment cases should not be one-sided or even two sided — there are at least three parties with serious interests that come into play–the employer’s religious exercise; the employees’ interest in employment, in the benefits required by law, in the employee’s (singularly or

Re: Divisiveness

“nones”? Huh. I knew that was a thing, but didn’t really expect to see it here. Steve On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, mallamud malla...@camden.rutgers.edu wrote: I agree with Alan's statement below, stated better than I did. I would add that we now do/should include the nones within the

Re: Does UVA have its own Regnerus scandal?

by treating it seriously. Steven Jamar -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org

States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage

Isn’t this an easy case of free exercise violation? Assuming that states do not need to recognize same sex marriages as a matter of federal equal protection law, and do not need recognize church-recognized same sex marriages as vaild for state purposes (though the state would still recognize

Re: Hobby Lobby transcript

I think Mary is dead-on on this point and would love to see the court interpret RFRA as inherently and unavoidably including some sort of balancing test that takes into account not just whether the burden is substantial, but just how substantial or intrusive it is, as well as recognizing that

Re: Hobby Lobby transcript

Where is the complicity burden? The financial burden can’t be a burden. If the alternative removes the complicity, and that alternative is available to them, then where is the substantial burden on religion? It was plaintiff’s complicity theory that was the driving force. They had the

Re: Fired Buddhist Employee Sues Claiming Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

An employer's duty to accommodate is notoriously anemic. Here the Buddhist is likely claiming the requirement forces the employee Sent from Steve's iPhone On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:34 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: An interesting lawsuit that Howard Friedman

Re: Fired Buddhist Employee Sues Claiming Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

The employer's duty to accommodate is notoriously anemic. Forcing an employee to violate his beliefs concerning right speech seems wrong as a matter of morality and policy, but not law. If someone else can put the offensive words on the communications, then there might be an accommodation case,

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

as a value, and right practically because, as many have noted, bureaucrats, judges and legislators all have done a remarkably bad job of it. -KC On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote: Cryptic. Equal right to be wrong is a good start at what

Re: Scope of Academic Representations re: Pending Legislation

I do not find it all disturbing that academics engage in advocacy and do not present their positions in an objective, neutral way — or in a way that some others might think objectivity and neutrality require. Nor do I object to their being advocates, tailoring arguments to the particular

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

I appreciate Kevin Chen’s clarification that he does not consider equality foreign to U.S. consitutional jurisprudence. I agree with him that equality is not easy to corral and that equality is context dependent, like every other aspect of law. There are procedural aspects of equality and

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA / FDA labeling for ella

I think it is difficult only because of the impossibly long, subjective, untestable stretch of the religious (not legal) complicity theory. If there is .1% chance of something happening, does that make one complicit in it? Does my paying taxes make me complicit in the 30,000 annual deaths on

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

I can get behind liberty. Can you (and others) get behind equality? Often they work together, but sometimes they are in serious conflict. State sanctioned liberty to exclude and discriminate against denies equality to some. State sanctioned and enforced equality limits the liberty of some

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

To shift Sandy’s tort analogy — if you walk the streets of NYC at rush hour you have to expect to get jostled by the crowd and not every touching is therefore an actionable battery. When Hobby Lobby and Notre Dame choose to walk the streets, they assume the risk of some jostling. Steve --

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

Still complicit--the employer knows the wages will sometimes be spent on things the employer dislikes just as much as the employer knows some employees will use insurance for things the employer dislikes. If the theory is complicity, that line is a pretty lame one. Sent from Steve's iPhone

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

citizens have an equal right to be wrong seems like a good start. -KC On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote: I can get behind liberty. Can you (and others) get behind equality? Often they work together, but sometimes they are in serious conflict. State

Re: Final post on discrimination/religious liberty issue

I hope Greg is right about the first category, but many anti-gay advocates want a blanket exclusion based on their animus toward gays that would cover any person engaged in business, even Hobby Lobby. As to the second category — I don’t see those two parts as one category. The first

Re: Whispering in the ear of Jan Brewer....

Let’s think about how this law would operate. A gay person walks into the store and is denied service. Now, this gay person needs to sue to prove the store improperly refused him service because he is gay. So he needs to hire a lawyer, pay the lawyer, and spend a lot of time and effort to

Re: Definition of discrimination.

Maybe I’ve been wrong about the complicity theory after all. Those who are condemning homosexuality know that at least some people are prone to act in a violent way against gays and so by condemning homosexuality they are complicit in incidents (and far, far worse) of violence against gays.

Re: Protecting Religious Conscience from Private Suits -- How far do we go under the Const and under RFRAs?

...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:49 AM To: Law Religion Law List Subject: Re: Protecting Religious Conscience from Private Suits -- How far do we go under the Const and under RFRAs? I don’t think state action is as settled as Chris’s post implies

Re: bigotry and sincere religious belief

I get that religious people do not want to be discriminated against. Indeed, they have lots of protections in the laws already protecting them from discrimination in employment, public accomodations, and so on. And they have lots of special treatment in the form of exemptions from laws that

Re: Accommodation vs. the complicity theory

: I really have a hard time listening to a claim that RFRA supporters think that being required to not abuse children [is] an invasion of religious liberty. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Steven Jamar stevenja

Accommodation vs. the complicity theory

I was, early on, generally a support of RFRA and thought the Smith rule went too far. I thought that the substantial burden would work out much as it has — courts have been reluctant to find a substantial burden very easily. But in the last decade, and in particular with the response of some

Re: RLPA history for RLUIPA

They are not forced into that choice except by their choice of beliefs. They can do other things. They have no right to run a business in opposition to established public policy. If they can win the political battle and get specific exemption in the legislation — ok. But what if the

Posner on oral advocacy in religion case

Judge Posner gives 1L lesson on oral advocacy to Notre Dame's lawyer on oral in freedom of religion case. Pretty basic 1L stuff. Embarrassing for the attorney — and his firm and school.

Re: Posner on oral advocacy in religion case

University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 7:47 AM To: CONLAWPROFS professors; Law Religion Law

JW juror finds religion leading to mistrial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/pr-georges-trial-in-fatal-police-chase-tossed-because-of-jurors-religious-beliefs/2014/01/09/3e834ef4-7956-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_print.html -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for

Re: courts and lawmaking

We are a common law country where courts have always made law. We are a country where courts have always interpreted the statutory and regulatory law and unavoidably in the process “made” law. We are a country where legislatures (including Congress) have the power to write the law contrary to

FSM in Madison rotunda

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/athiest-group-s-flying-spaghetti-monster-displayed-in-wisconsin-capitol Pastafarians don’t generally evangelize quite this much. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual

  1   2   3   4   5   >