This essay is about reading gay porn before class. And it resurrects an Ideological Outrage Of The Day from 2012. And a graphic novel. And striking out romantically. And Richard Dawkins.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Test Clause predictably collide with Obergefell v. Hodges in Eastern Kentucky.
Or: Why you don’t really believe that religious liberty should allow what you think it should.
Burt Likko thought he understood this six years ago: religion is religion, and business is business. But the Hobby Lobby case leaves the rules a whole lot blurrier.
Burt Likko thinks that Citizens United and McCutcheon were correctly decided. But how can he square that conclusion with his recent Ordinary Court opinion?
The Ordinary Court’s majority moves on to the final issue left in the case, and issues its ruling.
Tim Kowal agrees the Greens have individual standing, but suggests the corporation is the appropriate party to assert their claims.
In Part III of the Ordinary Court’s treatment of the Hobby Lobby case, the Ordinary Justices’ voting pattern shifts, with dramatic results.
Part II of the opinion, dealing substantively with whether Hobby Lobby can state a claim for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The first part of the Ordinary Court’s treatment of one of this year’s most-publicized legal cases. To begin, we must understand the factual and legal landscape.
Introducing a new project by some of the lawyers and scholars writing for Ordinary Times: The Ordinary Court.