From
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/10/swift-company-fires-10
0-workers/:
At least 130 Muslim workers at the north Greeley JBS Swift Co. plant
were fired Wednesday afternoon, apparently over a dispute involving
breaks during Ramadan
At issue is a request by Muslim workers
I'm not sure quite how the judges became arbiters of scriptual
interpretation. They did have to ask the threshold question of whether
the law is compelling the objectors to do something that religiously
object to, but it seems to me that this is a necessary inquiry for the
law.
As to
Judy Baer writes:
Hey, folks, anybody else notice what these two cases have in
common? Daddy won. Feminists, take note!
Isn't it a little unhelpful to generalize from a sample of 2
cases? Here, by way of comparison, are the first nine cases I cite in
my Parent-Child Speech and Child
Ah! Very sorry that I misunderstood.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Judith Baer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:30 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: RE: A different approach to parents' different levels of
religiosity in child custody cases
From Buck v. Buck, 4 Pa. D. C. 5th 238 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2008). Given Lee
v. Weisman's conclusion that simply having a prayer at a not formally
mandatory graduation is unacceptable coercion of religious practice,
wouldn't counting a parent's not engaging in religious/spiritual
activities [with] the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:00 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Yet one more example of discrimination against the
irreligious inchild custody cases
Here's a different, and in my view better, approach to parents' different
levels of religiosity in child custody cases:
Jackson v. Jackson, 2007 WL 5446673 (Ariz.App. Div. 1):
¶ 6 Mother argues that the family court erred in not counting in her favor the
fact that Jeremy will receive more
The Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act, 71 Penn Stats. secs.
2401 et seq., is pretty much a RFRA, but defines substantial burden (which
needs to be proved by clear and convicing evidence) this way:
Substantially burden. An agency action which does any of the
California Supreme Court holds doctors have no religious freedom
rights to refuse to artifiically inseminate a same-sex couple (even if
they sincerely object to this on religious grounds). The court didn't
decide whether the California Constitution followed Sherbert, Smith, or
something else.
I agree with Marci about the Free Exercise Clause, but of course
both Title VII and various jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction RFRAs (though
there is not one in Nevada) represent the political process itself
making a judgment that courts should draw the lines in the first
instance.
I do
Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:09:42
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academicsreligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Nevada district court applies Fraternal Order of Police
v.Newark(3d Cir
Riback v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep't, 2008 WL 3211279 (D.
Nev. 2008). The court concludes, though, that the headgear regulation
(which required the removal of all hats when entering any building, when
not in uniform) isn't subject to strict scrutiny because the regulation
does not
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFEB53892B27DCEF8825749E
007B1851/$file/0615371.pdf?openelement
Haven't read the whole thing yet, but the opinion appears to reject (by
an 8-3 vote) the RFRA claim. Hhere's what looks like an interesting
passage from the Introduction:
Thus,
State v. Fischer, 2008 WL 2971520 (Ariz. App.), upholds a
statutory rape conviction of Kelly Fischer, a member of the
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Fischer was
married, and then took a second wife, Lujean, though of course she was
not recognized as a wife
That's a great argument for Smith, and under Smith. But I don't see
how it works under RFRA or other Sherbert/Yoder-type regimes.
Sherbert makes clear that even when the government is giving
unemployment benefits, it must pass strict scrutiny when it requires
behavior that violates
Religion
issues for Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: Re: Conflicts between religious exefcise and gay
rights and cudgels
Well, I'm surely not trying to pooh-pooh the religious
concerns -- merely to try to probe what, exactly, they are,
and how much these conflicts differ from
the Negro comes in.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:04 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion
issues for Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: RE: Conflicts between
I wonder which way the cudgel is being exploited (or maybe
both). It seems to me, for instance, that religiously motivated
discrimination in public accommodations against gays is likely also a
relatively infrequent phenomenon, partly because it's financially costly
to the discriminators,
is required by his religion.
That is the essence of Lyng and Bowen. He is not trying to
insulate his own behavior from regulation; he is trying to control the
government's behavior.
Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, I thought about
have decided it the other
way. And under Lukumi it seems fairly clear that any such law would
give rise to a colorable Free Exercise claim based on intentional
discrimination.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:42 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666
Perhaps Doug, Dan, and others are right that the case is
enough like Bowen v. Roy
]
***
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 11:42 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666
Perhaps this is indeed so on the facts of this particular case;
but I take it in a future case, there might be no tax refund to offset
this against, no?
Eugene
Eric Rassbach writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
I agree that, in principle, lack of sincerity rightly defeats a
RFRA etc. claim. But in practice, my sense is that many judges are
reluctant to find claimants to be insincere. Outside the prison
context, I've seen very few cases in which the judge made such a
finding. Even in Sherrod's
I'm inclined to agree with Alan here -- many of us genuinely
believe that those things that are good and pleasant for us are also
good for our souls. There's nothing particularly inconsistent about
someone's feeling a religious motivation to alter his mental state using
marijuana;
Sherrod v. Tenn. Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 WL 2894691 (Tenn.
Ct. App.), involves a father who refused to pay his child support,
partly because Mr. Sherrod states that he is a Born Again Christian and
a Sunday School teacher and that he is greatly disturbed that DHS is
attempting to
Folks: Let me mention again that list discussion tends to be most
helpful when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and not cliche
generalities.
Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what protection
should be offered to speech that's critical of religion. I'm
Jean Dudley writes:
As to the rest of the argument below, I don't think it
can work under
Thomas v. Employment Division. It is not for a court to
decide what's
the best reading of Revelations, or whether the federal
statute indeed
sufficiently bears the mark of the beast, or
Well, I suppose that's part of the question with any
accommodation: When the government goes out of its way to accommodate
people's religious objections -- by rearranging things to prevent
coercive burdens on the people's religious beliefs -- is it therefore
improperly endorsing the
Well, I thought about Bowen v. Roy, but my sense is that the
internal procedures point there was that the Roys weren't required to
actually do anything that violated their religious beliefs (the
government had stopped demanding that they provide Roy's social security
number, and five
of Christ. -- John Calvin.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: From the list custodian
Folks
Cooper v. Church of St. Benedict, 2008 WL 2894699 (Pa. Super. 2008),
concludes that plaintiff's breach of employment agreement complaint can't be
dismissed, because there isn't enough evidence to show that her position as
music director at a Catholic church is ministerial. But does the
, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Cooper v. Church of St. Benedict, 2008 WL 2894699 (Pa. Super.
2008), concludes that plaintiff's breach of employment agreement
complaint can't be dismissed, because there isn't enough
evidence to
show that her position as music director at a Catholic church
, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Political divisions along religious lines
I agree with this, but your account only talks about the
divisions caused by the first decision. Striking down
legislative prayer would indeed be controversial, more so
Folks: My sense is that it usually creates a nicer tone for people
to call each other by their full names, first names, or
title-plus-last-name, rather than just by last name alone. It also
usually creates a nicer tone for people not to talk about others'
peddl[ing] their views (whether
Folks: Just a quick plug from the list custodian for maximum
accuracy. If you want to cite a statistic, please check it and cite the
source (plus see whether the big picture is more complex than you
describe). For instance, a quick visit to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics site
Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:13 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Judicial enforcement of Islamic dowry-on-divorce agreements
Mohammed Zawahiri and Raghad Z. Alwattar were married, in an
arranged marriage. The day of the wedding, Zawahiri signed a
mahr
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm inclined to say that:
(1) When a parent refuses to take a child back -- not just can't
take the child back because the child won't come, or because the child
is a physical danger to the other children, but refuses to take the
child back --
I should note that some states prohibit employers from restricting their
employees' off-duty political activities. California Labor Code sec.
1101, for instance, provides, No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce
any rule, regulation, or policy ... [f]orbidding or preventing employees
from
___
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
There's a lot of talk of Smith here -- does anyone know why the
Texas RFRA wasn't involved? Did the defendants conclude that strict
scrutiny would do them no good, and they need the per se prohibition on
secular court involvement that is created by the no religious
decisions doctrine?
I'm sure Justice Scalia is not credible to lots of people, just as
any Justice is not credible to lots of people. But I take it the
question should be whether his arguments about the Establishment Clause
-- the question he seemed to be discussing -- are sound, a matter that
is logically quite
disparate impact test in
another context.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject
Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Heart of the Disagreement Among
theJudgesintheTexasFLDSLitigation?
I'm puzzled -- all 12 judges refused to recognize the
facts that the CPS was pointing
Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:22:10
To:Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: The Heart of the Disagreement Among the Judges in
the Texas FLDS
Litigation
An interesting item from Linnell v. Linnell, 2008 WL 1913991 (Conn.
Super. Apr. 15):
The children, by the parties' agreement prior to their birth, have been
raised in the Muslim faith. The children, or at least Kelsey at this
point, attend weekly religious instruction. They observe the Muslim
A state university uses compulsory student fees for various
purposes, including funding student insurance that pays for abortions.
Assume a state RFRA applies, and some students claim that this violates
the state RFRA, because their religion bars them from helping -- even so
indirectly --
Folks: Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the
questions of the law of government and religion. If someone wants to
tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other
legal principles, that's great. But discussions at this level of
abstraction, with no
it is necessary to maintain
the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:39 pm
Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON
.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:44 pm
Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors
What's
An English newspaper site reports:
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.a
spx?brand=ISLGOnlinecategory=newstBrand=northlondon24tCategory=newsis
lgitemid=WeED16%20Apr%202008%2013%3A51%3A32%3A940
Newington Green Unitarian Church, which the 18th century
Last week, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that
Elane Photography (a husband-and-wife photography business for which the
primary photographer is the wife, Elaine Huguenin) violate New Mexico
public accommodation discrimination law by refusing to photograph a
same-sex commitment
a commitment ceremony or wedding
considered necessary?
Disclosure: I am a lesbian and a landscape photographer.
Jean.
On Apr 15, 2008, at Tue, Apr 15, 6:55 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Last week, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held
that Elane
Photography (a husband-and-wife
.
-- Original message --
From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What noise did the union want to make?
Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A Houston ordinance imposes various restrictions
on the use
of sound
equipment, but excepts (among other
A Houston ordinance imposes various restrictions on the use of sound
equipment, but excepts (among other things) church bells or church chimes when
used as part of a religious observance or service during daytime hours,
provided the sound did not cumulatively exceed five minutes
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--amish-buildingc
od0318mar18,0,5223481.story
MORRISTOWN, N.Y. (AP) _ The religious rights of 10 Old Order Amish men
are being violated by an upstate New York town that is selectively
prosecuting them for building homes without permits, a
I've put the latest copy of my religious accommodation regime
map of the U.S. -- from the upcoming Third Edition of my First Amendment
textbook -- at http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/religionmap.jpg (if the
shading looks a bit ugly for you, zoom in to get the best effect).
Please feel free
I just ran across Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.130, which defines place of public
accommodation for purposes of state antidiscrimination law, and has the
following exception:
(3) Place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement does not include a
religious organization and its activities and
The Cal. Ct. App. just rejected a claim of a constitutional
right to homeschool
(http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B195072.DOC). The
Pierce/Meyer parental rights argument was rejected on the strength of
50-year-old California precedent, but I thought that I'd ask this list
It should be
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.DOC
Eugene
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
I vaguely recall that there was a case dealing with an
Establishment Clause challenge to some government action outside the
U.S. -- perhaps government funding of certain religious institutions or
some such. But my quick searches couldn't find it; can anyone help me?
Or am I just making it
Aha! Lamont v. Woods, 948 F.2d 825 (2nd Cir. 1991) -- thanks very
much. Special factoid bonus: The second named plaintiff was Isaac
Asimov.
Eugene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent:
: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:21:31 -0800
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Chip Lupu writes:
I think we have to go back to Prof. Finkelman's realist
question: Justice Scalia has (both
Chip Lupu writes:
I think we have to go back to Prof. Finkelman's realist
question: Justice Scalia has (both before and after Smith)
voted to uphold Free Exercise claims (Frazee, Lukumi, Locke
v. Davey), but I don't believe he has EVER voted against the
government in an Establishment
I had thought that the Texas Monthly dissent was simply accepting
the pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause caselaw, whether because Scalia at
the time hadn't yet squarely focused on the question -- recall that he
joined the majority in Hobbie two years before, and didn't join
Rehnquist's dissent,
Dik v. Dik, 2008 WL 376404 (Mich. App. Feb. 12): As to raising
Emma [age 2.5 at the time], the trial court found that this sub-factor
favored plaintiff based on the testimony that plaintiff had a stronger
religious background and was more actively involved in bringing the
minor child to
for the Michigan Messenger, which drew heavily on your NYU
Law Review article on the subject.
Ed Brayton
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:19 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law
clause on grounds applicable to enforcement of contracts
generally, so for example a showing of duress will defeat the
arbitration clause).
Vance
On Feb 7, 2008 11:05 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Wouldn't
Floyd Wilcut drove a truck for Innovative Warehousing. He was
involved in an on-the-job auto accident; he needed a transfusion, but
refused to accept it, and as a result died.
The question is whether the employer is legally liable for death
benefits, given a statutory provision
Is the Archbishop talking about different legal rules for different
communities selected by government decision, or just about binding
arbitration (in whatever system, religious or otherwise, of their
choice) for those parties who so agree by contract? I had assumed it
was the latter, but
. If such secular agreements are allowed, it
seems to me religious ones should be as well, and on much the same
terms.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:23 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject
, February 07, 2008 7:23 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Archbishop Williams and Sharia Courts
the latter might make some sense, but might also leave some people --
women especially -- deprived of civil rights; furthermore, what
happens to someone who leaves
Would allowing enforcement of contractually agreed secular
arbitration, but barring enforcement of contractually agreed religious
arbitration, be constitutional? Or would it violate the Free Exercise
Clause, especially if people argued that they felt a religious command
(or at least
writing on this thread simply led to my thinking about this
distinction.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh,
Eugene
Sent: Tue 1/29/2008 3:56 PM
To: Law Religion
The ADF reports that the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau is
holding a hearing on a complaint against a husband-and-wife photography
business which who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4369
I take it that
I sympathize with Doug's view, and the arguments for it. But
it's important to recognize that there are two possible reasons one can
support antidiscrimination law: (1) One wants to make sure that people
have reasonably equal access to various services without regard to race,
religion,
Well, I like to think that the key question here isn't whether
one is a lawyer or an academic, but rather the strength of one's
arguments and the backing they have in caselaw. As it happens, many
courts have held that a party's constitutional rights will sometimes
stop a court from acting
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion
issues for Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: Re: A judge preferring the more religious parent
Good question. We've been over this before
interests. No constitutional problem, correct?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:06 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion
issues for Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: Re
Vance's proposed approach has the merit of being, at least facially,
viewpoint-neutral; and I take it that it would apply to all ideologies,
religious or otherwise. But let me probe whether it is indeed so.
Say, for instance, a child has been raised in a racist household.
After the
Enforcing the parties' express agreement is one thing (cf. Cohen v.
Cowles Media in the free speech context). But restricting the speech of
a parent -- whether religious or political -- without an express
agreement is quite another.
Also, if the rule applied by the New York court was
don't think that religiosity *as such* is
the principal point; the child's psyche is the principal point and
courts should evaluate claims strictly on that basis.
On Jan 24, 2008 12:59 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Vance's
Actually, the New York appellate court approved a father's petition for
overnight visitation, but stressed that this was done only because the father
and his fiancee agreed to refrain from exposing the child to any ceremony
connected to their religious practices, and because the Family
A recent New York state appellate court decision upheld a father's
petition for overnight visitation, but stressed that this was done only because
the father and his fiancee agreed to refrain from exposing the child to any
ceremony connected to their religious practices, and because the
A blog reader asked about this; my guess is that there aren't
any generally applicable laws barring the public drawing of blood in the
first instance, but if there were, it seems to me this would raise some
interesting questions under state statutory or constitutional rules that
provide
Jean Dudley writes:
I'd say that yes, the courts would have to uphold conjugal visits.
OK, say that this is so. Now would that create problems of
discrimination in favor of religion that are far more serious than the
norm (a normal level of discrimination which Cutter v. Wilkinson
From Bryant v. Tilton, 2008 WL 149990 (E.D. Cal. 2008): On
March 9, 2007, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint,
challenging the constitutionality of the Family (Overnight) Visiting
program as adopted by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR).
I'm happy to report that the decision reported in the Time story
was from 1970, and was promptly reversed by the New Jersey Supreme
Court. In re Adoption of E,
59 N.J. 36 (1971). Some preference for the religious (or the more
religious) parent in child custody cases (not, to my
(1) I was hoping we could change the subject line, simply to be
more accurate -- the Ninth Circuit remanded for further proceedings on
the RFRA claim, but I think it did not hold that the RFRA claim will
prevail, even as to drawing blood.
(2) I don't think that IV drug use is a
hunt?
Steve
On Dec 19, 2007 4:38 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(1) I was hoping we could change the subject
line, simply to be
more accurate -- the Ninth Circuit remanded for further
Any thoughts on the story? My sense is that this would be permissible
if the room were open to all student groups (or at least all student
groups that are religious or antireligious), even if it turned out that
other groups had no inclination to use it. But I'd love to hear what
others think.
This is apparently a myth. See
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp; among other
things, it includes what appears to be a photo of the inscription, which
actually quotes a different line from the speech -- a line that's not
followed by so help us God.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Marie A. Failinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:15 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: JLR call for papers
Eugene, might I ask you to post this once more, since the deadline is
coming up? If you can, thanks so much.
CALL FOR PAPERS
antigayspeech?
I don't know where you get your information.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:29 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:27 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
against antigayspeech?
I'm puzzled: It's
State v. Bussmann, Minn. Supreme Ct., Nov. 1, 2007,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MNvol=sc\0711\OP
A051782-1101invol=1, upholds such a ban by an equally divided court,
but concludes that as applied the ban violated the Establishment Clause:
[T]he district court
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:59 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
against antigayspeech?
The major purveyors of informal violence are street
of a conflict: victims of violence or
mainstream (or not so mainstream) religious groups. See point 1
above.
We have different priorities and interests. I strongly prefer mine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh,
Eugene
Some have tried to defend the Snyder decision by analogy to bans
on residential picketing. I think there are huge differences between
residential picketing bans (which are content-neutral, narrow, and
relatively clear) and the IIED tort and the intrusion upon seclusion
tort relied on in
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh,
Eugene
Sent: Sat 11/3/2007 2:14 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Of Phelps and Persecution
Alan: What if a town enacted
601 - 700 of 1198 matches
Mail list logo
