From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:59 PM
To: 'Paul Finkelman'; 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Question about the Kentucky County Clerk controversy
1. As I mentioned in my initial post, she should lose the
federal law
exercise? I think not. Not even close.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I appreciate Marty’s argument, but I’m not sure it quite works.
The burden of giving up your business (if you want to avoid violating your
:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop decision
Sandy: Why
National Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
518-439-7296 (w)
518-605-0296 (c)
paul.finkel...@yahoo.commailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com
www.paulfinkelman.comhttp://www.paulfinkelman.com/
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: Law
Sandy: Why exactly should we all agree that anyone covered by
common carrier law could not refuse to provide service to an abortion center
- or a KKK delegation or what have you? After all, we don't agree that
everyone covered by drug laws couldn't get a religious exemption, or
I appreciate Marty’s argument, but I’m not sure it quite works.
The burden of giving up your business (if you want to avoid violating your
religious beliefs) strikes me as quite substantial, just as is the burden of
giving up your unemployment compensation (if you want to avoid
...@gmail.commailto:tzn...@gmail.com
wrote:
The various pharmaceutical companies refusing to sell certain drugs to death
penalty states come to mind.
-Kevin Chen
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
Sure, why not? Say a grape grower
of cupcake-eligible customers and include, in addition to
payment and appropriate demeanor, adherence to the baker's views of sexual
propriety?
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I should add
I should add that it also concludes that the Colorado
Constitution’s religious freedom guarantee follows the Smith model rather than
the Sherbert/Yoder model, something that was less clear before.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
Well, maybe no sale to you, but I don’t see how that should
persuade others. I’m not sure that the claimants should prevail here, but any
argument that is based on the objection that a religious claim is
“metaphysical” doesn’t strike me as persuasive.
The Torah
Sorry – left out a “don’t” below (added in bold):
Well, maybe no sale to you, but I don’t see how that should
persuade others. I’m not sure that the claimants should prevail here, but any
argument that is based on the objection that a religious claim is
I wonder if David could elaborate on what sorts of
viewpoint-based restrictions the government can impose on business speech on
its own property. As I understand it, the argument is that a business would be
free to speak out in favor of gay rights, but not against gay rights -
...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM
To: Law Religion issues
If your client had anti-same-sex-marriage materials posted in
his store, would you be worried that he might be sued for creating a “hostile
public accommodations environment” based on sexual orientation? See, e.g., the
opening pages of
Indeed. In RFRA, RLUIPA, and Title VII, Congress deliberately
created regimes that mandate religious exemptions from some generally
applicable rules. The Court is applying those regimes. That doesn't suggest,
I think, that the Court will revisit its judgment that the
.
Alan Brownstein
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday
in Locke v. Davey: there'd be
something very weird, to say the least, about going from long-prohibited to
required in one fell swoop. Doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't do so; but it
is understandable that they'd be anxious about it.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Volokh, Eugene
vol
to religious organizations, even when they use the money to advance
their religious objectives.
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
From Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley (8th Cir. May 29) (2-to-1 vote),
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov
is present: It's direct funding, not
other forms of aid. And it's a very selective grant program, not a generally
available entitlement.
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I agree that there’s little clear in much
of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 10:04 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: 8th Cir. upholds exclusion of religious schools from playground
safety funds
I never quite understood this argument: Because some religious
From Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley (8th Cir. May 29) (2-to-1 vote),
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/05/141382P.pdf:
DNR [Department of Natural Resources] offers Playground Scrap Tire Surface
Material Grants, a solid waste management program. The grants provide DNR funds
to
diminish the rhetorical force
somewhat.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:44 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: 8th Cir
their religious
objectives.
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
wrote:
From *Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley* (8th Cir. May 29) (2-to-1
vote), http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/05/141382P.pdf:
DNR
Marty: I thought it was established that some colleges forbid
sex by students outside of marriage. I assume that this isn’t a judgment about
the civil law of adultery, but rather because they view such sex as deliberate
sin. If so, why wouldn’t they “extend such rules to
It sure is a way to whip up fear among people with traditional
beliefs. But fear may often be perfectly logical, and a sound stimulus to
political action. The gay rights movement has been trying hard to stigmatize
sexual orientation discrimination, and hostility to
Sandy: I appreciate your point, but should it be relevant that
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually covered a comparatively
narrow set of places of public accommodation, and (as best I can tell) didn't
apply to retail establishments or service providers such as
I do think Smith is right, but jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction
RFRAs (i.e., the model we now have in many states and at the federal level
after City of Boerne) are sound, too, for reasons I discussed in my “Common-Law
Model” article. I don’t know what Robert George thinks.
I think the answer is yes, just like I think the choice of whether to
write / photograph / paint / sing something should come within the freedom from
compelled speech recognized in Barnette, Wooley, and other cases. But some
people, as I understand it, take the view that once one does
I don’t think we have to postulate this, or focus on highly
out-of-the-mainstream religious groups. As I understand it, many a devout Jew
will approve, on religious grounds, of a wedding between an irreligious ethnic
Jew like me and another Jew, without any extra work that I
Alan: What do you thank about freelance writers? Say that
someone generally takes freelance gigs to write a wide range of press releases,
technical manuals, and pretty much anything else that comes in the door. Along
comes the Church of Scientology, asking the person to write
The question isn't so much of whether the behavior is emotionally
intimate, but whether it is sufficiently physically (or intellectually)
intimate or personal that a person ought to have a right to choose her partners
for such behavior. There are prostitutes legally working in Nevada,
, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
Alan: What do you thank about freelance writers? Say that
someone generally takes freelance gigs to write a wide range of press releases,
technical manuals, and pretty much anything else
. If it is just business (and that is not what a clergy person
thinks they
are doing when they marry someone), then it ought to be subject to anti-
discrimination law.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh
of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex with people she's
unwilling to have sex with?
Mark: So do I understand correctly that you think it's OK
www.paulfinkelman.comhttp://www.paulfinkelman.com
*
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol
the answer.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
wrote:
Mark: So do I understand correctly that you think it's OK for the
government
to say:
As a condition of your being able to earn
legalized the business of prostitution, subject to regulations, and so treats
such places of business like any other (including specifically a gymnasium,
health spa, bowling alley, golf course or other place of exercise or
recreation.)
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol
Any thoughts on the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho incident in which the
City Attorney suggested that a wedding chapel run by two ministers would have
to allow same-sex marriages, given a Coeur d’Alene public accommodations
ordinance that banned sexual orientation discrimination? See
in Coeur d'Alene, marry over 35,000 couples like the Hitching
Post ministers, but refuse to perform interracial marriages pursuant to their
longstanding and sincere religious belief that God intended the races not to
inter-marry).
- Jim
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol
I've been thinking about a little thought experiment, and I
thought I'd run it past this list to see whether people see it as helpful.
Imagine a state in which prostitution is legalized. A
prostitute offers her services to the general public (perhaps through a web
I much appreciate Will’s responses; let me offer some in turn.
Will writes:
(a) When you say you agree that the vaccination analysis might vary by specific
vaccine, I assume you mean that the government might have a harder time proving
a compelling governmental interest for some
...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:00 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Homeschooling, vaccinations, and Yoder
I
Very interesting, and thanks very much! The Michigan case does
indeed rely on Yoder, in holding that the statutory requirement that the
homeschooling parents be certified instructors was unconstitutional, as to
parents who had a religious objection to providing certified
Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:00
I agree that homeschooling is a possible constraint on the
effectiveness of schooling-based immunization, though given the burdens of
homeschooling, I'm not sure how many people's homeschooling choices are going
to be driven primarily by vaccination preferences.
] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:26 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
Subject: Necessary, and alternatives that are less restrictive of one right,
but that burden other interests
Dear colleagues: I'm writing an article
Dear colleagues: I'm teaching my First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic again
this Spring, and I thought I'd pass along our letter seeking cases, in case any
of you are litigating cases in which we can help, or would like to circulate
the letter to some friends of colleagues who might want such
Dear colleagues: I'm writing an article on the concept of necessary, in the
sense of least restrictive alternative. I plan to focus on, of all things,
the law of self-defense and the duty to retreat, as well as least restrictive
means tests in constitutional law / RFRA, and other matters as
From Marc DeGirolami, a link to the AALS 2014 Law and Religion
newsletter:
http://clrforum.org/2014/11/25/2014-aals-law-religion-newsletter-2/
Eugene
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe,
.
I hope that helps,
Allen Asch
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
(religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent
existing law… See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7r9bVpayQ
Allen
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:29
Colleagues: Does anyone know the theory on which the subpoenaed information is
relevant here?
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/City-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-in-equal-rights-5822403.php
Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week
when it
My apologies if I missed this in past list traffic on the
subject, but I just wanted to check my understanding: As I read it, under an
existing executive order, http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/statutes/eo11246.htm,
federal contractors can't discriminate based on race, color,
23, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
My apologies if I missed this in past list traffic on the
subject, but I just wanted to check my understanding: As I read it, under an
existing executive order, http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I agree -- my point was simply that the debate is in part over
whether to treat sexual orientation discrimination as akin to race
Marty: I appreciate the basis for your doubts as to (A). But
if it’s not correct, then I take it that Jewish religious institutions just
couldn’t get the benefit of sec. 702 at all, given that -- as best I can tell
-- the standard Jewish understanding is precisely that an
B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.
From: Volokh, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
My understanding is that Anthony Kennedy was a local Sacramento
lawyer of some distinction - and not at a large firm - from 1963 to 1975. I
suspect this was largely a civil practice, so it might not go to criminal law
experience (which, as some pointed out, only Alito and
that this statement of
yours about Doug is actually true?
Eugene
From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 1:53 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Douglas Laycock;
Scarberry, Mark
Subject: Re: On a different
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 9:57 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: On a different strand of the seamless web
Sandy: I appreciate your point, and it is certainly a view held
by many serious scholars. But my point
I don't see how this works. First, the question isn't whether a
customer's going to the mall is a religious experience. The question is
whether the mall owner's decisions about how to run with the mall may be guided
or mandated by religious beliefs. A mall owner might, for
government?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I do not view standing in respectful silence as participation in
a religious ceremony (for much the same reasons Justice Scalia gave in Lee v.
Weisman). I view
Mark’s post raises a very interesting point, but it also, I
think, points to a deeper problem. In our culture, with its history, we have a
vast range of religious references. “The year of our Lord” (or “A.D.”) is one.
Place names – Corpus Christi, Los Cruces, Sacramento,
I’m not a fan of official prayers. But it seems a plausible
view of religious liberty that (1) people should have exemptions, when
possible, that let them practice their religion, but (2) government
institutions should have considerable latitude to include religious speech in
I take it that the authors of those briefs saw a law requiring
someone to do something that they thought was sinful as different from a
practice under which people end up hearing things from the government that they
might find offensive or alienating.
Eugene
for prudence, as against all principle all the time.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I take it that the authors of those briefs saw a law requiring
someone to do something that they thought
Aren’t most religious claims “implausible”? It’s pretty
implausible to me that God would care whether we mix meat and milk, and in
particular that a prohibition on “seething a kid in his mother’s milk” (the
relevant text, if I understand correctly) should be read as barring
them from opting out in a way that will give the government authority to compel
someone else to provide the coverage, or that their religion requires them to
provide employer-based health insurance to their employees, well, . . . let's
just say I'm skeptical.
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Volokh
It seems to me that there are likely to be many situations in which a court
holds that a law isn’t the “least restrictive means,” but the political
coalition backing the law has lost power – whether in the recent past, or just
because the law is a very old one – and therefore any less
The Court also said that there’s a compelling government
interest in preventing race discrimination in employment, even though there are
literally millions of people who are exempted from Title VII (since they work
for employers who have fewer than 15 employees). Is such gross
Prof. Nancy Leong asked me to forward this query:
What is the best work on atheists are treated under the Establishment Clause,
state constitutions, and/or Title VII? I have been surprised by how little I've
found in law reviews, and wondered whether there is a legal scholar
I think there's much to what Alan says, but I think the
relationship between national and local politics is complex. For instance,
while choosing U.S. Supreme Court Justices is a matter for national politics,
many groups that organize to influence that will also have local
Could you please elaborate a bit further on the assertion in the
last sentence? A corporation, after all, is a private entity, not the
government; it’s not obvious, then, that giving it free exercise rights is an
“establishment,” at least in any constitutional sense. Indeed,
I appreciate Alan's attempt to cabin the divisiveness concept,
but I wonder whether it works. Nothing is beyond the scope of political
decision-making -- there is always the possibility of constitutional amendment,
and, more importantly, so long as various decisions involve the
,
but this problem of inconsistency (and therefore illegitimacy) over time seems
particularly severe.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I appreciate Alan's attempt to cabin the divisiveness concept,
but I wonder
I appreciate the general concerns raised in Jon Mallamud's post -- but
I just don't see how items 1 to 5 lead to the conclusion in item 6 about Hobby
Lobby. Could you elaborate, please, why it would not be wis[e] for Justice
Scalia to view RFRA as constitutional as to federal laws, and
alike.
Sandy
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 7, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I agree entirely on the bottom line, but let me ask what would
happen in the absence of concerns about harm to the sick. Say an employer has
.]
Jon
On 2014-06-08 12:24, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I appreciate the general concerns raised in Jon Mallamud's post -- but
I just don't see how items 1 to 5 lead to the conclusion in item
6
about Hobby Lobby. Could you elaborate, please, why it would
I agree very much with Tom on this point. In most controversies, both
sides are acting in ways that could plausibly be labeled as divisive.
Government religious speech may be seen as divisive, because it may alienate
members of other religious groups; but prohibitions on such speech,
Whoops, hit enter too early -- please disregard the Of course,.
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Jon Mallamud writes:
4. Hobby Lobby represents to me an important test in how politically motivated
the Court is becoming. In Boerne the Court held that in enforcing the
fourteenth
amendment, the Congress had to stick to the Supreme Court's interpretation of
the constitution. In
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 10:50 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
(religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
Subject: FW: Religious Exemption From Vaccination Policy Requires Acceptance of
Secular Reasons As Well
I see – “scandal” means “expressing views you disagree with.”
Have you actually read the work of Doug Laycock (one of the top Religion
Clauses scholars in the country)? Do you have a substantive response to his
substantive arguments? Or is your view based on, to borrow a term,
Mr. Green: This is an academic discussion list, for substantive
arguments of substantive legal questions having to do with the law of
government and religion. Please focus on substantive argument, rather than
personal attacks, whether on Prof. Horwitz, Prof. Laycock, or me, and
Mr. Green: You obviously take a dim view of the value of the
list, and thus seem not terribly interested in maintaining the value of the
list (at least as those of us who do value the list understand it). There are
many forums online in which you can express your views. But
, 2014 4:57 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Does UVA have its own Regnerus scandal?
Eugene:
I take it you have no problem with Mr. Green's personal attacks on me? ;-)
On Sunday, May 25, 2014, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote
I was just reading, and being puzzled by, Hadley Arkes' First Things article,
Recasting Religious Freedom,
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/87af8f0af298f8ee9016150c3/files/f4e8099e-b859-4316-b018-30b1df49f257.pdf.
I hesitate to try to summarize his point, for fear that I didn't fully grasp
it;
.
Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941
On May 9, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I agree entirely, but which particular statutory scheme is
under discussion? If it's the North Carolina one, a recent
...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 6:11 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage
Well, I'd
An interesting lawsuit that Howard Friedman blogged about, and
that I thought I’d pass along. I assume that in this situation, the employee
would win only if there were someone else who could have easily done the task
instead of the plaintiff, yes? I would think that, both as
Is there a comprehensive list of court decisions that have upheld religious
exemption claims (setting aside those that have been reversed) under
Sherbert/Yorder regimes, whether federal or state and constitutional or RFRA,
from 1963 to today? Thanks,
Eugene
Folks: I think we've been departing in recent days from the
politeness and thoughtfulness that has generally made this discussion list
especially valuable. Personal attacks are unlikely to persuade anyone -- even
bystanders -- and are just likely to poison the well for future
From: Salamanca, Paul E
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:28 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Dear friends,
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to do much more than
protect
From: Faisal Kutty [mailto:faisal.ku...@valpo.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:06 PM
...
Dear Colleagues:
I write on behalf of the AALS Section on Islamic Law and myself to enlist your
assistance in circulating a survey on teaching to the right individual or
individuals at your law
1. I don’t see where Marci can possibly get the inference that
I “would not have overturned the Lochner like of cases.” The main part of my
law Common-Law Model for Religious Exemptions articles criticizes the
Sherbert/Yoder regime for being in many ways Lochner-like. I think
Our criminal law and evidence law was developed by courts. Our tort law,
contract law, and property law have been and continue to be developed by
courts. Courts are, rightly or wrongly, seen by our legal system as competent
enough to make such decisions. There's nothing unconstitutional
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Dec 17, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
The heart of Marty’s argument (I focus for now on item 1 below) is, I think
://sol-reform.com/
[cid:image001.png@01CF03DB.E419F020]https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts
[cid:image002.png@01CF03DB.E419F020] https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion
I appreciate Alan's point about Moore, which is indeed an exemption
from a generally applicable law for family relationships. But note how rare
such an exemption is, and how minimal the costs are that it imposes on others.
Neither neighbors nor taxpayers, I suspect, suffer appreciably
Rick Garnett's and (less directly) Michael Worley's posts
highlight, I think, the fact that there are two kinds of religious exemption
arguments that are often heard.
The first is Rick's argument, at least in this instance, which
focuses on what might see as
101 - 200 of 1198 matches
Mail list logo
