|
As I've said repeatedly, legislatures are far from perfect. But they
are institutionally more competent to assess the public good than courts
are. They are also more accountable. I have no vested interest in
seeing accommodations denied, and support many, but the blind accommodation
formulation of a rfra leaves too many entities at risk of harm.
Marci
In a message dated 4/12/2005 5:35:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Somehow, then, legislatures are paragons of deliberation about the public good when religious people or institutions seek exceptions under the First Amendment through the courts, but then "ciphers" offering "blind handouts" when they would legislate accommodations of religious exercise for all. |
_______________________________________________ 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.
