Two men were sentenced to death in Pakistan for “claim[ing] that they had seen God” and “invit[ing] other people to join them in their union with God through Chaman Sarkar” (apparently a local religious leader), The Express Tribune (affiliated with the International New York Times) reported Sunday. Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.
Archive | Religious Freedom
Somalia Outlaws Christmas Celebrations
So report GhanaWeb and SomaliCurrent: A directive released on Tuesday by the Ministry of Justice and Religious Affairs stated that no Christian festivities could be held in Somalia…. “We alert fellow Muslims in Somalia that some festivities to mark Christian Days will take place around the world in this week,” said [the Director of the […]
Why the Utah Law Criminalizing Polygamy Is Unconstitutional
By Eugene Volokh on December 16, 2013 12:35 pm in Freedom of Speech, Religious Freedom, Same-Sex Marriage
I’m no fan of the Utah federal court’s opinion striking down the Utah law criminalizing polygamy. But I do think that the law, at least as currently interpreted by Utah officials, is indeed unconstitutional. Here’s a brief sketch of my thinking. 1. The relevant statute states, A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he […]
Brown v. Buhman and Bestiality
By Eugene Kontorovich on December 16, 2013 4:16 am in Constitutional Law, Religion and the Law, Religious Freedom, Sexual Conduct Restrictions, Sexual Orientation
The Utah polygamy-rights decision is truly a courageous civil rights ruling. Most sexual liberties decisions going all the way back to Griswold v. Connecticut come at a time when the relevant practices have won very broad acceptance, especially among the educated elites. Not so with polygamy, which is quite far from the lives of the […]
Brown v. Buhman isn’t so complicated
By David Kopel on December 14, 2013 4:35 am in Criminal Law, Fourteenth Amendment, Gay Rights, Privacy, Religion and the Law, Religious Freedom, Sexual Conduct Restrictions, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court, Television
To me, today’s decision of the United States District Court for the District of Utah in Brown v. Buhman is much clearer and carefully-reasoned that Orin finds it to be. There may be plenty of blogging on the case, and Eugene’s analysis next week, after he’s had a chance to analyze it, will provide the perspective […]
My Hobby Lobby Posts, in a Single Word Document
Here are my Hobby Lobby posts in a single Word document, in case some of you might find them helpful.
A Response on the Hobby Lobby Posts, from Matt Bowman at the Alliance Defending Freedom
I thought I’d pass this along, since many of our readers are interested in the case. Naturally, I’m also open to posting something from one of the lawyers or academics on the opposite side of the issue. First, I want to thank Prof. Volokh for his fine series of posts on the cases involving the […]
6. Beyond RFRA: What Should We Think of Mutual Duties of Accommodation?
Whew. That was a lot of writing on Hobby Lobby last week, and a lot of reading. I hope it was helpful, interesting, or both. Now, fortunately, I’m finishing up, but I wanted to close with one broader thought, going beyond the purely legal RFRA question. (I should also note that this thought is even […]
Wind Farm Permits to Kill Protected Eagles
By Will Baude on December 7, 2013 10:32 am in Endangered Species, Environment, Religion and the Law, Religious Freedom
Yesterday the Department of Interior finalized a rule that allows wind farms to get 30-year permits allowing them to kill federally-protected eagles. Eagles are frequent accidental victims of power plants and wind turbines, and the government has long taken the position that it is a federal crime to kill an eagle even unintentionally. To get […]
5C. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Interest in Protecting Newly Created Private Rights
[Please note the UPDATE below.] (For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) Today, I’m blogging about what I think should be the heart of the Hobby Lobby case: whether denying Hobby Lobby an exemption from the requirement of providing potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives is the “least restrictive means” of serving a particular “compelling […]
5B. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Interest in Sex Equality
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) Today, I’m blogging about what I think should be the heart of the Hobby Lobby case: whether denying Hobby Lobby an exemption from the requirement of providing potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives is the “least restrictive means” of serving a particular “compelling governmental interest.” This post focuses […]
5A. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Interest in Protecting Health
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) We can now get to what I think should be the heart of the case: whether denying Hobby Lobby an exemption from the requirement of providing potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives is the “least restrictive means” of serving a particular “compelling governmental interest.” I don’t know what […]
4B. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Argument from Secular Exceptions
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) On then to another general argument — the argument that, regardless of the specific interests the government asserts in support of the employer mandate, those interests don’t count because the law has secular exceptions. One version of the argument is that such exceptions make the […]
3A2 [extra]. A Brief Note on the “Substantial Burden” Requirement
I’ve argued below that, if someone believes that it’s religiously wrong for him to be complicit in certain behavior, requiring him to act in such a way is a “substantial burden” on his religious practice under RFRA. This is true even if you and I might define complicity differently, and might view the particular actions […]
4A. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Slippery Slope Question
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) So far, I’ve argued that Hobby Lobby likely has a good case as to the claim that the employer mandate substantially burdens religious exercise, because the mandate requires Hobby Lobby to do something — fund potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives — that Hobby Lobby’s owners believe is […]