Chris Lund writes:

It's also important to keep in mind that the protection of state RFRAs can 
always be legislatively narrowed-and that has happened.  Concerned with a 
pending suit by a Muslim to claim a drivers' license without having to take off 
her headscarf, Florida statutorily (and retroactively) removed such claims from 
the protection of Florida's RFRA.  Judging by Florida's reaction to it, that 
apparently is the most threatening state RFRA claim that has ever been brought. 
 I leave it to the listserv to evaluate how bad it really is, but it is 
certainly less scary than what Measure 3 opponents feared.


              I think the opportunity for legislative narrowing is a critical 
argument in favor of state RFRAs - but wouldn't that have at least been 
somewhat harder with Measure 3, which would have been a state constitutional 
amendment and not a state statute?
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to