Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-14 Thread Roger Severino
o:masin...@nova.edu>] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all religious beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-14 Thread Ryan T. Anderson
gt;> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> [ >>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> ] >>> on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM >>> *To:* Law & Religion

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-14 Thread Michael Worley
Mike >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > >> *Subje

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-14 Thread Marty Lederman
eligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [ > masin...@nova.edu] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act > > Agreed. Any language that

RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-14 Thread Friedman, Howard M.
s.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all religious beliefs

RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-13 Thread Michael Masinter
exercise just political chumming? Mike From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-13 Thread James Oleske
..@nova.edu > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re:

RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-13 Thread Michael Masinter
, 2016 6:29 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the change described below. https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-c

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-13 Thread James Oleske
Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the change described below. https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, a

New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

2016-07-13 Thread James Oleske
In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither (1)