is more specific than "Re:
Contents of Religionlaw digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision (Finkelman, Paul)
2. Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision (Scarberry, Mark)
--
Message: 1
Date: Fri,
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:16 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop
erity.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
-- Original message--
From: Volokh, Eugene
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 10:45 AM
To: Paul Finkelman;Law & Religion issues for Law Academics;
Cc:
Subject:RE: Colorado Cakeshop decision
I’m not sure I understand how Prof. Finkelm
_
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Jean Dudley [jean.dud...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:07 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:03 AM, Volokh
> On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:03 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>
> 2. The “single grocer in town” hypothetical may be relevant to the
> compelling government interest inquiry – maybe one could argue that the
> government has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone has access
> to food witho
Marty makes a good but not dispositive point. In any event we have to be sure
this doesn't turn into a principle that bars people who belong to a certain
religion from some professions. There are analogous and very disturbing
historical prohibitions, not limited to those the mention of which wou
The burden on religious exercise if you have to give up your business *might
*be quite substantial, especially if means choosing between your religion
and sacrificing many years of work, costs, good will, self-fulfillment,
etc. But not if "giving it up" means "not starting down that path in the
fi
erwise?”
sandy
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop decisio
lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:16 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop decision
I suppose I’m like the naïve first-year student who begins with the assumptio
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 v
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:16 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop decision
I suppose I'm like the naïve first-year student who begins with the assumption
that "common carrier" ju
*****
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Volokh, Eugene <
> vol...@law.ucla.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2015 11:27 AM
>
> *To:* L
onlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
what is "magical" about common carrier is that if you go into the bus
aw.edu>
www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com/>
*
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:27 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop decision
I still don’t quite
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:28 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
Because, that is what a common carrier does. Put it another way, if the
common carrier
From: "Volokh, Eugene"
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: Colorado Cakeshop decision
#yiv7090365976 #yiv7090365976 -- _filtered #yiv7090365976
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #
e on monopolists rest,
presumably, on a different analysis than the duties we impose on Ollie's
Barbecue to stop being a bigot.
sandy
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf
impose on Ollie's
Barbecue to stop being a bigot.
sandy
From: 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
edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:32 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
Eugene:
I am trying to figure out what would be the "inappropriate" use of the Deli's
sandwiches? Is it feeding doctors
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
I suppose one might argue that busin
ch I think is just fine. But other people
> care more about the behavior of their customers (and for that matter of
> their suppliers) – indeed, many who praise “corporate social
> responsibility” support that general approach. And when the business feels
> a religious objection in such a situat
rsday, August 13, 2015 10:58 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
This is an interesting example. (And I thank Eugene for his typically
thoughtful answer.) Can one distinguish between the illegitimate direct use of
the product (to kill human
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
This is an interesting example. (And I thank Eugene for his typically
thoughtful answer.) Can one distinguish between the illegitimate direct use of
the product (to kill human beings) and the mere fact that the cu
u>
www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com/>
*
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:51 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Colorado Cak
ionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:58 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
This is an interesting example
ndlord refusals to rent to unmarried couples, which led to different results
in different states.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:58 PM
To: Law & R
/AJCGlobal<http://www.twitter.com/AJCGlobal>
[cid:image001.jpg@01D0D66C.3EA30EF0]
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M.
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:21 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subjec
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
There are moral/ethical dilemmas, and then there are legal ones; In the case
of the KKK and selling sheets, it could be argued that a shop owner could
refuse to sell sheets and pillow cases because a l
And when the business feels a religious
>> objection in such a situation, any existing religious exemption regime would
>> be implicated, wouldn’t it be?
>>
>>
>>
>>Eugene
>>
>>
>>
>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla
@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
A non-rhetorical question: i
;
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Levinson, Sanford V
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:20 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* R
d, wouldn't it be?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
A non-rhetorica
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:06 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Colorado Cakeshop decisio
before.
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:06 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
S
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:06 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Colorado Cakeshop decision
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf
Fairly straightforward. Rejects
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf
Fairly straightforward. Rejects free speech and free exercise claims.
(The case does not involve a refusal to bake a cake displaying any
particular "content" -- the bakery refused to bake *any* cake for a
same-se
36 matches
Mail list logo
