Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View from Montgomery County
Sorry: The font on that post came through garbled for some reason. Here it is again. I agree with Eugene that theres not much of a compelled speech problem here, for reasons the Court explained in Southworth. (Of course, its not quite as easy as that, because of cases such as Dale, Abood and United Foods, which find compelled-speech problems in the unlikeliest of places. But those cases are in my view wrongly decided.) To be sure, carrying a message presents more significant compelled-speech problems than does paying for it, see Wooley. But in this case, the flyer would be contained in a sealed envelope, which is a far cry from a license plate, whatever one thinks of Wooley. For similar reasons, Im not terribly persuaded by Judge Michaels dissenting view that permitting insertion of Good News Club flyers would coerce students to engage in religious activity, as in Lee v. Weisman. Nevertheless, I think the case is not as clear-cut as it appears at first; but the reasons why that is so are obscured by the (questionable) way in which the case was litigated. (Disclosure: I live in Montgomery County and my children are students in the School District; but until reading the decision today I had very little inkling of the facts of the case or how it was being litigated.) The court finds without much effort that the School Districts exclusion of the Good News Club flyers would be a Free Speech Clause violation if there were no Establishment Clause bar to distributing the flyers. This conclusion is not surprising, because the School District conceded that its exclusion of the flyers which would announce Good News Club meetings -- was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under controlling precedent. Slip op. at 7. That concession was probably ill-advised. I think the Free Speech Clause question is much more complicated than the District and the court assumed it to be, wholly apart from Wooley and any issue of compelled speech. Just as did the Supreme Court in Rosenberger, the court in this case incorrectly assumed that the school permits virtually all types of nonprofit speech (except religious speech), including most any controversial _expression_, to be conveyed to students and parents in the relevant program. That assumption is mistaken. The School District policy in question does not permit all nonprofit groups to distribute whatever literature they choose. That is to say, it is not a public forum, nor analogous to one. The policy states that [a]nnouncements of educational services or cultural or recreational programs directly related to the educational program may be made available to students provided that the organization sponsoring the announcement is not-for-profit and the announcement is approved for distribution by either the director for School Administration or the deputy superintendent of schools. Thus, groups may distribute literature only if (i) it is directly related to the educational program, and (ii) it is approved for distribution by a school official, who is presumably entrusted with some discretion in the matter. Under any reasonable understanding, announcements of religious meetings are not directly related to the educational program, because, whatever else that criterion means, it must not encompass invitation to participation in religious activities _expression_ that the School District itself is constitutionally forbidden from conveying as part of its educational program. That, frankly, should be end of the Free Speech claim, and thus the end of the case, except that it appears that in practice, the School Districts enforcement of the directly related criterion is a bit counterintutive. According to the DOJ Brief (which is the only brief I could find online -- http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/briefs/cef_montgomery.pdf), [m]aterials distributed under this policy (or under any of the other written or unwritten policies followed by the Board) have included advertisements for a variety of activities, including adult education classes, cultural events such as plays and Earth Day celebrations, athletic league try-outs, and charitable activities such as clothing and food drives. I suppose that perhaps those advertisements are in some attenuated sense directly related to our schools educational program -- although frankly, they seem to me indirectly related, at best. Nevertheless, if directly related simply means the sort of speech that school teachers themselves would be permitted to make to their students which is how the criterion appears to have been understood in practice -- then these school-approved advertisements satisfy, at least for the most part, the criterion in a way that invitation to bible study would not. See Mergens, 496 U.S. at 265-66 (Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment) (although a school may permissibly encourage its students to become well rounded
RE: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View fromMontgomery County
Title: Message In earlier case, Peck v Upshur County, dealing with distribution of literature to students from tables-a policy far preferable to the one upheld yesterday by the Fourth Circuitthe Fourth Circuit held that a public forum was created by the school when it allowed distribution of community literature even though it reserved the right to exclude material inconsistent with the schools educational policy. Yesterdays decision rests on the same idea-one I think at odds with the notion of a public forum. In Peck, the Court held equal access rights did not apply to elementary school students-a holding sub silentio overruled in the Montgomery County case. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:35 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View fromMontgomery County 1. For example, it's entirely possible for the school to have content-neutral standards of review for the announcements. Of course it is. But no school in the Nation does.Indeed, no school is even viewpoint-neutral. It is virtually unthinkable that a school would permit distribution in student backpacks of many, many forms of content/viewpoint -- for instance, all those that are entitled to second-class mailing privileges(Hannegan v. Esquire) or all those that are entitledaccess to a public forum. 2. Instead of concluding there is no viewpoint discrimination, the more logical answer is that both excluded speakers should have a claim under the Free Speech Clause. My claim was not that there is no viewpoint discrimination: My argumentis that there is tons of viewpoint discrimination in such programs, constantly, and that there's nothing constitutionally problematic about it. You are correct,however, that the upshot of the CTA4 decision is that both -- that is to say, all -- excluded speakers now have a claim under the Free Exercise Clause: The Bush and Kerry (and Nader, and Young Socialist Workers, and . . . )campaigns, the NRA, NARAL, the Bad News Club, etc., etc. -- loads of _expression_that is entirely inappropriate for a public school to be facilitatingto their charges. And thus we see the end of the program. 3.Surely if a school had a release time program [teachers in classrooms] could make an annoucement about that. An announcement that the bus is there to drive kids to the religious school -- maybe. An announcement such as that on the flyers in this case, i.e., an advertisement for religious programs? I think not. Teachers often -- and quite appropriately -- encourage their students to do this, that and the other thing after school or over the summer. But they may not advise their students to adopt certain religious precepts, or to check out certain religious clubs. The obvious elephant in the middle of the room in these cases, onethat the courts (and litigants) tend for some reason to ignore, is the simple fact that schoolsdo censor the speech with which they are associated -- especially when the association is (or is likely to be perceived as) especially strong, as when schools send information home with students. The censorship is not in order to disfavorreligious (or any other) viewpoints, but instead simply to avoid facilitating messages that are likely to be controversial or to be seen as inappropriate by parents. So Kerry for President, the Klan, Planned Parenthood's exhortation to use birth control, some other group's exhortation to abstinence -- all will be screened out by virtuallyevery public school system in the country. Not because the school disapproves -- andno one should assume otherwise -- but because the school does not want to be associated, however loosely, with encouraging its students to adopt or to reject any divisive or controversial viewpoint. That is the baseline against which an exclusion ofthe Good News flyer has to be measured -- not some hypotheticalbaseline under which schools do not, or are not permitted to, do such screening (however much some might wish that that were, in fact, the rule). And against that baseline, exclusion of theGood News flyer should be unproblematic -- while inclusiongives religious speech a preferred status enjoyed by no (or almost no) other political or controversial speech. - Original Message - From: Derek Gaubatz To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:47 AM Subject: RE: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the ViewfromMontgomery County At least3 assumptions in Marty's postbelow seem problematic to me: First, the assumption that one must conclude that theschool officially endorses the content of the annoucement because it looked it over first before allowing it to be distributed. Why is this so? For example, it's entirely
RE: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View fromMontgomery County
Marty says they allowed 389 out of 402 requests. That is consistent with applying a child-adjusted compelling interest test, rejecting only those that violate Tinker or Bethel, and probably a few more that the school finds objectionable on some ground that it might or might not be able to defend. Approving that many is not consistent with approving only those that the school itself endorses or only those that relate directly to the curriculum. To claim that they can allow that many private groups to speak, and still retain unrestrained discretion to pick and choose on the basis of viewpoint, is to create a new category that does not exist in the Supreme Court's public forum jurisprudence. If that category were created, schools could play favorites however they wanted. The flyers are sent home to parents , and parental permission is required for the child to attend the club, as a protection for children and for the authority of parents. If that step were removed, and the flyers just handed to the kids, the compelled speech argument that people have been making would disappear. But from the perspective of those making the argument, that should make the program worse, not better. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View from Montgom...
In a message dated 7/1/04 11:36:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My claim was not that there is no viewpoint discrimination: My argument is that there is tons of viewpoint discrimination in such programs, constantly, and that there's nothing constitutionally problematic about it. I heartily concur although my example is perhaps more content discrimination. My daughter's public school, although it has noncurricular clubs, including religious clubs, refused to allow formation of a Young ___ (fill in political party name of choice) Club at the high school. "No [partisan/party-affiliated] political clubs" was the reason given. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
RE: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View fromMontgomery County
There is some merit in Doug's argument. But it seems to me there is a real problem with a school district stating that it only distributes materials directly related to the curriculum that it explicitly approves while at the same time having courts conclude that there is no endorsement of the material distributed. Perhaps we should only look at what the state does and never what at what it says -- but if state disclaimers mean something for constitutional purposes than state affirmations ought to mean something as well. The numbers certainly seem to suggest a forum rather than the exercise of pedagogical discretion -- but I'm not sure numbers like this are totally inconsistent with the school system exercising pedagogical discretion. I can imagine a school library having a rule that it will only accept donations of pedagogically suitable books and accepting 389 of 402 that are donated. Without more, that would not transform the library into a forum. As for the argument that handing out the flyers to students directly would only make things worse. Both of these alternatives may raise different, but valid, constitutional concerns. And it isn't as if there aren't a lot of alternative ways for private groups using school grounds for expressive activities to reach their intended audience -- without using the school administration and teachers or other parents' children to deliver their message for them. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:24 AM 7/1/2004 -0500, you wrote: Marty says they allowed 389 out of 402 requests. That is consistent with applying a child-adjusted compelling interest test, rejecting only those that violate Tinker or Bethel, and probably a few more that the school finds objectionable on some ground that it might or might not be able to defend. Approving that many is not consistent with approving only those that the school itself endorses or only those that relate directly to the curriculum. To claim that they can allow that many private groups to speak, and still retain unrestrained discretion to pick and choose on the basis of viewpoint, is to create a new category that does not exist in the Supreme Court's public forum jurisprudence. If that category were created, schools could play favorites however they wanted. The flyers are sent home to parents , and parental permission is required for the child to attend the club, as a protection for children and for the authority of parents. If that step were removed, and the flyers just handed to the kids, the compelled speech argument that people have been making would disappear. But from the perspective of those making the argument, that should make the program worse, not better. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case onreligious freedoms
Doug, Was the condiminium corporation at issue here a public housing facility, or does the Charter of Rights apply to private actors as well? Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:45:26 -0500 This is not my prose, but someone else's press release -- B'nai Brith Canada's I think. I doubt we could get the same result in many U.S. jurisdictions. B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case on religious freedoms FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2004. MONTREAL - In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the rights of all Canadians to follow their religious practices without interference by the courts. In what is widely seen as an illustration of this point, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Jewish condominium owners in a Montreal building have the right to set up their own personal Succahs, temporary religious huts that are constructed in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Succot. B'nai Brith Canada's League for Human Rights had intervened in the matter following the initial refusal of the condominium corporation to allow observant Jewish residents to construct individual huts on their own balconies. Allan Adel, National Chair of B'nai Brith's League for Human Rights, reacting to the news, stated: We are satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, which has applied a broad interpretation to the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion and believe it to be in the best interests of all Canadians. The Succah ruling is an important, groundbreaking case that champions the cause of religious freedom in Canada and will have important ramifications well beyond the immediate facts of the case. Montreal lawyer Steven Slimovitch along with B'nai Brith's Senior Legal Counsel David Matas, represented the League before the Court. Slimovitch, acknowledging that he was pleased with the verdict stated: This decision sets an important precedent for the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs. The High Court has upheld B'nai Brith's argument that State should not be the final arbiter of religious dogma. Rather, this must be a private matter set by each individual. Established in 1875, B'nai Brith is the Canadian Jewish community's leading human rights agency. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case onreligious freedoms
I wondered that too, but I don't know the answer. A reliable friend sent me the release, and it contains all I know. At 03:52 PM 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote: Doug, Was the condiminium corporation at issue here a public housing facility, or does the Charter of Rights apply to private actors as well? Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:45:26 -0500 This is not my prose, but someone else's press release -- B'nai Brith Canada's I think. I doubt we could get the same result in many U.S. jurisdictions. B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case on religious freedoms FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2004. MONTREAL - In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the rights of all Canadians to follow their religious practices without interference by the courts. In what is widely seen as an illustration of this point, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Jewish condominium owners in a Montreal building have the right to set up their own personal Succahs, temporary religious huts that are constructed in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Succot. B'nai Brith Canada's League for Human Rights had intervened in the matter following the initial refusal of the condominium corporation to allow observant Jewish residents to construct individual huts on their own balconies. Allan Adel, National Chair of B'nai Brith's League for Human Rights, reacting to the news, stated: We are satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, which has applied a broad interpretation to the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion and believe it to be in the best interests of all Canadians. The Succah ruling is an important, groundbreaking case that champions the cause of religious freedom in Canada and will have important ramifications well beyond the immediate facts of the case. Montreal lawyer Steven Slimovitch along with B'nai Brith's Senior Legal Counsel David Matas, represented the League before the Court. Slimovitch, acknowledging that he was pleased with the verdict stated: This decision sets an important precedent for the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs. The High Court has upheld B'nai Brith's argument that State should not be the final arbiter of religious dogma. Rather, this must be a private matter set by each individual. Established in 1875, B'nai Brith is the Canadian Jewish community's leading human rights agency. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
RE: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court caseonreligious freedoms
THE OPINION IS AT WWW.LEXUM.UMONTREAL.CA/CSC-SCC/EN/REC/HTML/2004SCC047.WPD.HTM Marc STERN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nathan Oman Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 2:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court caseonreligious freedoms Doug, Was the condiminium corporation at issue here a public housing facility, or does the Charter of Rights apply to private actors as well? Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:45:26 -0500 This is not my prose, but someone else's press release -- B'nai Brith Canada's I think. I doubt we could get the same result in many U.S. jurisdictions. B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case on religious freedoms FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2004. MONTREAL - In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the rights of all Canadians to follow their religious practices without interference by the courts. In what is widely seen as an illustration of this point, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Jewish condominium owners in a Montreal building have the right to set up their own personal Succahs, temporary religious huts that are constructed in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Succot. B'nai Brith Canada's League for Human Rights had intervened in the matter following the initial refusal of the condominium corporation to allow observant Jewish residents to construct individual huts on their own balconies. Allan Adel, National Chair of B'nai Brith's League for Human Rights, reacting to the news, stated: We are satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, which has applied a broad interpretation to the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion and believe it to be in the best interests of all Canadians. The Succah ruling is an important, groundbreaking case that champions the cause of religious freedom in Canada and will have important ramifications well beyond the immediate facts of the case. Montreal lawyer Steven Slimovitch along with B'nai Brith's Senior Legal Counsel David Matas, represented the League before the Court. Slimovitch, acknowledging that he was pleased with the verdict stated: This decision sets an important precedent for the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs. The High Court has upheld B'nai Brith's argument that State should not be the final arbiter of religious dogma. Rather, this must be a private matter set by each individual. Established in 1875, B'nai Brith is the Canadian Jewish community's leading human rights agency. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court caseonreligious freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights carries a state action requirement, although the contours of state action doctrine differ somewhat from those in the U.S. The B'Nai Brith case was actually decided under a provincial statute, the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am less familiar with whether similar state action requirements apply to that law and how. The Court did draw on freedom of religion jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter and clearly would apply its substantive conclusions about the nature of freedom of religion in the context of the Canadian Charter in future cases. State action was an indirectly contentious issue in the Court's opinions; one Justice, at least, emphasized this point in dissenting. To the extent state action was required here, it appears to have stemmed from the fact that the Civil Code of Quebec accords legal status to condominium ownership syndicates and grants co-owners free use and enjoyment of [the] private portion and of the common portions of the condo, provided he observes the by-laws of the immovable and does not impair the rights of the other co-owners Paul Horwitz Visiting Assistant Professor University of San Diego School of Law From: Nathan Oman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court caseonreligious freedoms Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:52:02 -0400 Doug, Was the condiminium corporation at issue here a public housing facility, or does the Charter of Rights apply to private actors as well? Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:45:26 -0500 This is not my prose, but someone else's press release -- B'nai Brith Canada's I think. I doubt we could get the same result in many U.S. jurisdictions. B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case on religious freedoms FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2004. MONTREAL - In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the rights of all Canadians to follow their religious practices without interference by the courts. In what is widely seen as an illustration of this point, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Jewish condominium owners in a Montreal building have the right to set up their own personal Succahs, temporary religious huts that are constructed in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Succot. B'nai Brith Canada's League for Human Rights had intervened in the matter following the initial refusal of the condominium corporation to allow observant Jewish residents to construct individual huts on their own balconies. Allan Adel, National Chair of B'nai Brith's League for Human Rights, reacting to the news, stated: We are satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, which has applied a broad interpretation to the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion and believe it to be in the best interests of all Canadians. The Succah ruling is an important, groundbreaking case that champions the cause of religious freedom in Canada and will have important ramifications well beyond the immediate facts of the case. Montreal lawyer Steven Slimovitch along with B'nai Brith's Senior Legal Counsel David Matas, represented the League before the Court. Slimovitch, acknowledging that he was pleased with the verdict stated: This decision sets an important precedent for the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs. The High Court has upheld B'nai Brith's argument that State should not be the final arbiter of religious dogma. Rather, this must be a private matter set by each individual. Established in 1875, B'nai Brith is the Canadian Jewish community's leading human rights agency. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (voice) 512-471-6988 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
