Not permissible. An obvious sectarian gerrymander, with unmistakable harm to men, who get no comparable single-sex hours in the pool. And, I suspect, trans women are not going to be allowed in the pool during the hours for women only.
A policy that created hours for men (and boys) only, and an equal number of hours for women (and girls) only would be easier (though not easy) to defend on constitutional grounds, though perhaps even more unpopular for its detrimental effects on family swimming. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > permissible accommodation? > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/everybody-into-the-pool.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________ 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.
