Lisa -- how do you distinguish between allowing CLS and hate groups to
meet? Or does it not matter to you?
As a policy matter I think groups should be able to discriminate on
belief and still get access -- but then what about a belief that is
based on race? Or sex?
We are talking about
o:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:41 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
How fragile is the public forum protections of cases like Widmar, Lamb's
Chapel, and Good News? Let m
On 5/11/2010 8:05 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:
In a society committed to non-discrimination and equality, the
government should not be required to subsidize hate groups and groups
that exclude other on prohibited bases.
Are you saying CLS is a hate group? Or that a religious
organization is pr
I appreciate Alan's very helpful post particularly his concern about speech
distortion.
I have a question for him and others.
Should severe restrictions on freedom of expressive association best be viewed
as
a kind of viewpoint restriction? If groups speak through their leaders, and if
leaders
ubject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
Rick Duncan writes: "Consider this alternative description: Hastings is
attempting to create a designated limited public forum for all student groups
that are willing to waive their right to expressive association by being open
to include all come
In a society committed to non-discrimination and equality, the
government should not be required to subsidize hate groups and groups
that exclude other on prohibited bases.
There are plenty of private places to meet.
And if the society wants to change the policy, it can do so -- unless
it
How fragile is the public forum protections of cases like Widmar, Lamb's
Chapel, and Good News? Let me re-phrase one of Eugene's hypos:
"A [public library with unused meeting rooms] is attempting to create a
designated public forum for all [community groups] that decline to discriminate
in off
money for religious mission on the
theory that it is "unfair" to exclude them.
Marci
Marci
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: "Volokh, Eugene"
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 06:53:55
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE:
Rick Duncan writes: "Consider this alternative description: Hastings is
attempting to create a designated limited public forum for all student groups
that are willing to waive their right to expressive association by being open
to include all comers as members, including those who would detract
Alan writes:
"Mark's response suggests
that the forum Hastings created was more of a designated limited public
forum than a designated public forum. It has parameters designed to
serve a particular purpose -- "to
promote a diversity of viewpoint among groups for the benefit of the
entire st
nalysis.
Alan Brownstein
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark [mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 3:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
Alan’s question is
Chip writes:
"But this is more fantasy and fear. Students do and will self-select.
The moderate feminists group will not take over the radical feminists
group. The Republicans and Democrats will not co-opt each other and
form the single political group of the "mushy middles." Groups can form
While I agree with Rick's analysis, I would also point out that if the
organization wants a closed meeting, it does not have to occur on the
university campus. It can find a local church, a dorm room, or some
other similar location.
Lisa
On 5/10/2010 3:28 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:
Alan asks a
ers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
Original message
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick
Duncan)
Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
To: Law& Religion issues
bsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
Original message
>Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 15:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
>From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick Duncan
>)
>Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
>To: Law
Alan asks a great question:
"I understand that the
facts of CLS v. Martinez case are limited
to voting membership and eligibility for leadership positions. But if
the
foundation of the CLS claim is that it is being required to sacrifice
its
freedom of association rights to obtain access to a de
e Step Beyond" was a TV show that ran about the same time that the
original Twilight Zone series was on.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 3:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
rs are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
Original message
>Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
>From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick Duncan
>)
>Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
>To: Law & Rel
In a message dated 5/10/10 6:01:48 PM, aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu writes:
> why wouldn’t those associational freedom rights also extend to deciding
> to who may attend meetings and participate in discussions?
>
I think the associational claim might well extend to those activities.
But mightn't
l.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:42 PM
To: icl...@law.gwu.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Factual Clarification re CLS
Ira Lupu writes:
In a law school, there is certainly a rational basis for coming down on the
side of non-exclusivity as a condition of access to the forum an
ol.com [hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:07 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Factual Clarification re CLS
I think Rick misreads Justice Breyer's comments. He was playing Michael,
saying, tongue-in-cheek, that it would be "fantastical" that there would
Perhaps democrats will not attempt to take control of the Young Republicans.
But I think there is a good chance that socially liberal Christians may take
control of a conservative Christian group that can't protect its doctrinal
beliefs through its membership policy.
By the way, it is clear tha
Ira Lupu writes:
> In a law school, there is certainly a rational basis for coming down on
> the side of non-exclusivity as a condition of access to the forum and its
> privileges -- among other things, all-comers increases the likelihood of
> dynamic exchange of views, something a law school m
Apparently the Scientologists tried twice; two reported cases seem to fit
Marc's description:
Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705
(Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1993)
Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994)
The cases didn't arise on a college campus.
onlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick Duncan
)
>Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>
>Interestingly, Hastings takes the position that the
>policy it is enforcing against the CLS is not a
> sexual ori
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
Original message
>Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:49:55 -0400
>From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of "Marc Stern"
>)
>Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
&g
s.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip) Lupu
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:41 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
This concern about associations getting taken over by hostile forces is
completely ungrounded -- it
DT)
>From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick Duncan
>)
>Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>
> Interestingly, Hastings takes the position that the
> policy it is enforcing against the CLS is not a
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS
Interestingly, Hastings takes the position that the policy it is
enforcing against the CLS is not a se
Interestingly, Hastings takes the position that the policy it is
enforcing against the CLS is not a sexual orientation policy, but an
"all comers" policy, a policy that forbids any group from discriminating
against any person who wishes to be a member. Under this policy, an
NAACP student group
Douglas Laycock is certainly correct that CLS' statement of belief also calls
for heterosexual students to refrain from sex outside of marriage, but I am not
sure that does much work in resolving the tension between the desire to
prohibit discrimination based on a status that is tied to at least
I agree with David on the facts. A same-sex couple married during California's
window could not join CLS, as I understand it. That is sexual orientation
discrimination, which CLS defends on the basis that anyone in such a marriage
has demonstrated that he doesn't subscribe to the statement of
David-- I agree with your point here, and would note that it sounds just
like the defense in Loving v. VA.
I reject the notion that it wouldn't discriminate against gay and lesbian
people to say, you're as free as straight people to marry and have sex with
a person of a different sex, and
I'm not sure my understanding of the CLS policy agrees 100% with Doug's.
Whether or not you call it a disparate impact, I believe there is what groups
like Lambda have been litigating as an insurmountable obstacle faced by
same-sex couples that different-sex couples don't face. My understandin
34 matches
Mail list logo
