FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1844778992> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1844778992 abstract "One of the most active fronts in the debate over same-sex laws concerns proposed religious exemptions that would allow for-profit businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. These exemptions, which are being championed by a group of prominent constitutional scholars, would provide a shield from state and local antidiscrimination laws for a wide variety of commercial actors. Examples include innkeepers who refuse to host same-sex weddings, bakers who refuse to provide cakes for such weddings, employers who refuse to extend family health benefits to married same-sex couples, and landlords who refuse to rent apartments to such couples.Today's widespread academic validation of religious objections to same-sex stands in stark contrast to the academy’s silence in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s on the then-perceived conflict between religious liberty and interracial marriage. Although religious objections to interracial were pervasive at the time — as reflected in the statements of politicians, preachers, and jurists, as well as in public opinion polls — those objections never found a home in the pages of America's academic law journals. This Article offers the first comprehensive discussion of why the legal academy has been so solicitous of religious objections to same-sex when it was never receptive to similar objections to interracial marriage. After examining several factors that have contributed to this marriage dichotomy in the academy — including the rise of the conservative legal movement, the influence of the Catholic Church, and the unique role of race in American history — the Article explains why the most important factor for purposes of the proposed exemptions is the recent reconceptualization of religious liberty as extending fully to for-profit commercial businesses. That reconceptualization, which the Supreme Court accepted for the first time in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., creates a dynamic in which religious liberty will inevitably conflict with the rights of third parties in the marketplace, a dynamic that is vividly illustrated by the prospect of businesses invoking religion to deny service to same-sex couples. This Article concludes that exemptions authorizing such conduct threaten the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection — a right that has received scant attention in the debate until now, but one that can no longer be ignored in light of United States v. Windsor." @default.
• W1844778992 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1844778992 creator A5077140640 @default.
• W1844778992 date "2015-05-07" @default.
• W1844778992 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1844778992 title "The Evolution of Accommodation: Comparing the Unequal Treatment of Religious Objections to Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages" @default.
• W1844778992 cites W1532034442 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W1551585896 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W1557383093 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W1569876036 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W168370765 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W18765278 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W223281182 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W2993257799 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W346350779 @default.
• W1844778992 cites W99959168 @default.
• W1844778992 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1844778992 type Work @default.
• W1844778992 sameAs 1844778992 @default.
• W1844778992 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1844778992 countsByYear W18447789922016 @default.
• W1844778992 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1844778992 hasAuthorship W1844778992A5077140640 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C2781115785 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C2994117223 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConcept C76509639 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C107038049 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C107993555 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C138885662 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C144024400 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C17744445 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C199539241 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C2781115785 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C2994117223 @default.
• W1844778992 hasConceptScore W1844778992C76509639 @default.
• W1844778992 hasLocation W18447789921 @default.
• W1844778992 hasOpenAccess W1844778992 @default.
• W1844778992 hasPrimaryLocation W18447789921 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W1165692910 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W1524773471 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W2099320333 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W2301831263 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W2902148973 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W294683800 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3122008630 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3122028872 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3122423947 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3122855569 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3123167564 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3123678680 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3125107790 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3125230190 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3125354221 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3125523748 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3125734580 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W3182706123 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W346350779 @default.
• W1844778992 hasRelatedWork W99959168 @default.
• W1844778992 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1844778992 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1844778992 magId "1844778992" @default.
• W1844778992 workType "article" @default.