<mailto:boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On
Behalf Of Schwartzman, Micah Jacob (mjs4d)
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some objectors'
reli
] On
Behalf Of Schwartzman, Micah Jacob (mjs4d)
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some objectors'
religious beliefs
The point of modifyin
wartzman, Micah
Jacob (mjs4d)
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some objectors'
religious beliefs
The point of modifying your example isn't to draw a race analogy. It's to s
.@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Schwartzman, Micah Jacob (mjs4d)
> *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 4:33 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some
> objectors
boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On
Behalf Of Schwartzman, Micah Jacob (mjs4d)
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some objectors'
religious beliefs
bject: RE: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some objectors'
religious beliefs
I was focusing on the second part of Chip's post - not the first part. But I
think Chip's first argument may be more difficult to resolve than Eugene
suggests. The first question would be whether
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Schwartzman, Micah
Jacob (mjs4d)
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Facially neutral accommodations motivated by some objectors'
relig
I was focusing on the second part of Chip's post - not the first part. But I
think Chip's first argument may be more difficult to resolve than Eugene
suggests. The first question would be whether as a theoretical matter there can
be a technically facially neutral law that is so clearly a religi
What if we modify your last example in this way:
3. If it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause for
individual county hospitals to decide whether to provide abortions, why would
it violate the Establishment Clause for individual city-run swimming pools to
decide whether to pr
