Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
Tue Nov 9 14:23:58 PST 2004
The idea that the govt is responsible for all that it does not prohibit must
be treated with great care. It has the potential of making govt responsible
for all of life, and of eliminating the sphere of private action. Taken far
enough, it is totalitarian. Thus, for example, the argument I heard at one
AALS section meeting that Catholic refusal to ordain women as priests
violates the 14th Amendment, because the govt's refusal to extend
anti-discrim laws to churches results in church discrimination being state
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
From: marc stern [mailto:mstern at ajcongress.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:14 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
That the failure to regulate might constitute state action-as in failing to
ban private segregation- was one of the most hotly contested issues of the
mid-sixties civil right litigation>THE Supreme court ,if my memories of law
school are reliable, always dodged the question. It largely became moot as a
result of the 1964 civil rights act.
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of JMHACLJ at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:05 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:
Can't the state
regulate the use of its property? Can't one say that failure to do so
might amount to state action?
Seems at least plausible that if you can make that work, you can find state
action in the failure of a local government agency to prevent assaults on
public sidewalks. After all, they are public property.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw