That is true.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:49 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND 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.
