RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf
I also wonder if a hear scarf raises safety issues if the office is involved in a pysical confrontation; it also seems to me that or most paramilitary organizations the uniform must be uniform -- you can't have everyone mondifying the uniform to suit them. It reminds me of the O'Connor dissent in Goldman -- she would allow the yarlmulke because it was covered and did not actually aler the uniform; I suppose Phil. could create a headscarf for its uniforms. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Wed, 4/8/09, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 12:16 PM Is the rule really against wearing religious attire? I couldn't quickly find Police Department Directive 78 -- the relevant rule -- online, but as I understand it, it sets forth a specific uniform, and all deviations from the uniform are prohibited, whether they are religious or otherwise. I doubt, for instance, that the department would allow the wearing of political buttons, or ethnic symbols, or just the officer's favorite hat. Or am I missing something? Eugene -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David Cruz Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:24 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf
is it because the perception of religious bias by a police officer would impact how the population feels; imagine she busts a non-religious Moslem woman without headgear? Does this lead to a perception of unfairness; or she busts an Orthodox Jew in his headgear? Seems to me any religious symbols on police officers undermines their authority and community relations. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Wed, 4/8/09, David Cruz dc...@law.usc.edu wrote: From: David Cruz dc...@law.usc.edu Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu, paul.finkel...@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 11:24 AM I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf
Dear Friends, If anyone is interested in reviewing Directive 78 (the police department's uniform policy), I have a copy of it on my hard drive. Please feel free to contact me directly and I will send you the file. Also, here is a link to the Third Circuit's decision: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/073081p.pdf Best, Dave -- Dawinder “Dave” S. Sidhu http://www.ssrn.com/Auth?_id=688955 On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Paul Finkelman paul.finkel...@yahoo.com wrote: is it because the perception of religious bias by a police officer would impact how the population feels; imagine she busts a non-religious Moslem woman without headgear? Does this lead to a perception of unfairness; or she busts an Orthodox Jew in his headgear? Seems to me any religious symbols on police officers undermines their authority and community relations. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Wed, 4/8/09, David Cruz dc...@law.usc.edu wrote: From: David Cruz dc...@law.usc.edu Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu, paul.finkel...@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 11:24 AM I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to WearReligiousScarf
Upon slower reading of the Court's opinion, I think Eugene is right here. Question (or bafflement) withdrawn, and apologies for taking up bandwidth. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-bounces+dcruz=law.usc@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces+dcruz=law.usc@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:16 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to WearReligiousScarf Is the rule really against wearing religious attire? I couldn't quickly find Police Department Directive 78 -- the relevant rule -- online, but as I understand it, it sets forth a specific uniform, and all deviations from the uniform are prohibited, whether they are religious or otherwise. I doubt, for instance, that the department would allow the wearing of political buttons, or ethnic symbols, or just the officer's favorite hat. Or am I missing something? Eugene -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David Cruz Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:24 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf
I was confused about this too. The 3rd Circuit opinion makes it sound as if Directive #78 was religion-neutral. But the district court opinion was a little more unclear. Judge Bartle made statements like, Philadelphia Police Directive 78 bars the wearing of religious dress or symbols under all circumstances when a police officer is in uniform. That sounded to me like an explicit ban on religious attire. So I looked at the Directive 78 that Dave Sidhu sent. That does not single religious gear out specifically. It does have certain exceptions, such as for jewelry (wedding rings, class rings, id bracelets, small post earrings for women only). And relating to what Professor Finkleman said before, there's actually an allowance for scarves if they are black or navy blue, and captains and above may wear white scarves. Perhaps a khimar can fit in there. Best, Chris __ Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 vol...@law.ucla.edu 4/8/2009 11:16 AM Is the rule really against wearing religious attire? I couldn't quickly find Police Department Directive 78 -- the relevant rule -- online, but as I understand it, it sets forth a specific uniform, and all deviations from the uniform are prohibited, whether they are religious or otherwise. I doubt, for instance, that the department would allow the wearing of political buttons, or ethnic symbols, or just the officer's favorite hat. Or am I missing something? Eugene -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David Cruz Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:24 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf
Say that Directive #78 had a ban on specifically religious attire. (That sort of classification does happen. Pennsylvania, like some other states, has a statute that forbids public school teachers from wearing religious garb * a statute that both the district and appellate court mention in Webb for support.) As per what Professor Cruz said earlier, is there widespread agreement that this rule would be invalid under the Smith/Lukumi Free Exercise Clause? I certainly think so. But I have a hard time reconciling this with Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist., 480 U.S. 942 (1987), where the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to an Oregon statute that forbade public school teachers from wearing religious dress. Does anyone know what to make of Cooper in this post-Smith day and age? Best, Chris __ Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 dc...@law.usc.edu 4/8/2009 10:24 AM I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf
This case was poorly litigated. No constitutional claims were raised until the appeal, so the only thing before the court was a Title VII religious discrimination claim, which means that the claim was examined under the undue hardship standard rather than strict scrutiny. (The City admitted that it had not provided a reasonable accommodation.) Apparently the plaintiff failed to controvert the City's testimony regarding undue hardship, and the allowed scarves issue was not before the Court of Appeals because the plaintiff had not raised it in the District Court (see fn.5). The plaintiff also dropped the PA RFRA claim on appeal. It's a shame that it was bungled so badly, since the real issues at the core of this dispute are worth a court's attention. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:11 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf This case appears to have just become outrageous. She can wear a scarf but not this scarf? Or not for this reason? Or not if she's a Muslim? What rule, or what interpretation, did she violate? Quoting Christopher Lund l...@mc.edu: I was confused about this too. The 3rd Circuit opinion makes it sound as if Directive #78 was religion-neutral. But the district court opinion was a little more unclear. Judge Bartle made statements like, Philadelphia Police Directive 78 bars the wearing of religious dress or symbols under all circumstances when a police officer is in uniform. That sounded to me like an explicit ban on religious attire. So I looked at the Directive 78 that Dave Sidhu sent. That does not single religious gear out specifically. It does have certain exceptions, such as for jewelry (wedding rings, class rings, id bracelets, small post earrings for women only). And relating to what Professor Finkleman said before, there's actually an allowance for scarves if they are black or navy blue, and captains and above may wear white scarves. Perhaps a khimar can fit in there. Best, Chris __ Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 vol...@law.ucla.edu 4/8/2009 11:16 AM Is the rule really against wearing religious attire? I couldn't quickly find Police Department Directive 78 -- the relevant rule -- online, but as I understand it, it sets forth a specific uniform, and all deviations from the uniform are prohibited, whether they are religious or otherwise. I doubt, for instance, that the department would allow the wearing of political buttons, or ethnic symbols, or just the officer's favorite hat. Or am I missing something? Eugene -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David Cruz Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:24 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear ReligiousScarf I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was not a neutral law of general applicability and thus should receive strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her court battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining religious neutrality in its police force. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 ___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to
RE: Impact of same-sex marriage rulings on strict scrutiny inreligious exemption cases
Art, I am curious to know why you think same-sex marriage states will not (ever?) impose new regulations on the power of clergy to solemnize civil marriages. As for the religious liberty interests at stake, it is again, not a question of direct coercion, but of whether religious institutions that remain true to their religious identity will be allowed to retain a robust role in public life when that identity conflicts with the priorities or preferences of the state. Religious solemnization of civil marriage is just one manifestation of this issue--partnerships with religious institutions and government in the provision of social services (like adoption or marriage counseling) is another, and the list goes on. Another concern I had in mind was the fact that if the state does move to strip clergy of their solemnization power, it may do so selectively. That is, only certain houses of worship would literally get the state seal of approval to solemnize marriages while others would not and the state's choice of winners and losers will turn precisely on each religious institutions' theology of marriage.-Roger Severino (Disclaimer: all opinions expressed are mine alone) In a message dated 4/7/09 11:11:32 PM, rseveri...@hotmail.com writes: what is to stop Iowa from stripping dissenting religious institutions, and only such institutions, of the power to solemnize *civil* marriages? That seems unlikely to me, but what if it does -- how does that deprive a religious institution of its *religious* liberty? _ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009___ 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 private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
