The broadest possible holding of Locke is that the prohibition on government discriminating against private exercises of religion does not apply to funding cases. There is room for argument about whether it applies to all funding caes. It says nothing about regulation cases. So Locke cannot answer the question about the RA.
The RA question is whether the RA's Bible study is somehow state action because he is a state employee working out of his room on a 24-hour basis, or whether even though it is private action, the his unusual job gives the state a compelling interest in suppressing the Bible study. I am skeptical of both those theories, but however they are resolved, Locke has nothing to say about them. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:06 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Free Exercise Clause and government employees Alan asks some excellent points. I should say that there are sometimes Talmud study classes held during the day at UCLA law school; I don't think they're taught by a faculty member, but if there were a faculty member who wanted to teach them, I think that would be great, and I think it would also be great if students were invited. But let me ask a broader question; we've spoken so far about the Free Speech Clause, but it seems to me the Free Exercise Clause is also involved here. Holding a Bible study class in the place where one lives, it seems to me, is the exercise of religion. A rule that facially discriminates against such exercise of religion would thus presumptively implicate the Free Exercise Clause. See McDaniel v. Paty; Lukumi Babalu. Does Locke v. Davey rescue such a prohibition from invalidity? Does the Free Exercise Clause somehow not apply to discrimination against religious practices when the government is acting as employer? Eugene Alan Brownstein writes: > What makes this a hard case is that RAs wear several different hats > -- and it's not that easy to distinguish between them because RAs > don't have fixed office hours (at least I don't think they do) and may > be on the job for a good part of the day -- maybe all of it. > > So let's break this down. > > 1. Suppose an RA is on the job, at the office in a sense, and > available for counseling or other work related interactions with dorm > students from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. Could he be told not to > hold bible study classes in his room during this period? Would the > University also have to prohibit him from holding other kinds of > meetings as well. > > 2. Who gets invited to these classes? Does it matter whether the RA > invites students from the hall for which he is an RA. > > 3. Can I hold Torah study classes in my office at the Law School > during the school day and invite my students to attend? Can the Law > School prohibit me from doing so? _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
