Eugene has to be correct here. In fact, the Court does not apply strict
scrutiny to every situation involving religious speech. It always depends on
the context and the government purpose. The notion that political speech
and religious speech are subject to strict scrutiny in every circumstan
Thanks, Art. Interesting case. In CLUB v City of Chicago, the City
altered its land use scheme to eliminate the discriminatory treatment and the
City eventually won under RLUIPA. Why did the Fire Department's elimination
of the beard policy not lead to a similar result under RFRA?
Ma
Thanks for the Potter case * it's a great example. The opening lines of the
district court's opinion also seem worthy of mention:
"Justice Holmes once wrote that it brought him the greatest pleasure to enforce
those laws which he believed to be as bad as possible, because he thereby
marked the
I don't think I understand the question, perhaps because I'm not familiar
with the CLUB case. A violation of RFRA doesn't depend on any
discrimination; it's enough that the government declines to accommodate a
religious
exercise, that its failure to do so imposes a substantial burden on the
plai
More later when I have more time (promise or threat?), but I did not
argue that any particular state RFRA required any particular level of
scrutiny for any particular religious speech. My only point was that
when a plaintiff challenges application of a speech-restrictive statute
against him or her
Thanks. That explains the district court's frustration with what it was
being asked to do.
Marci
In a message dated 6/22/2009 12:46:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
artspit...@aol.com writes:
I don't think I understand the question, perhaps because I'm not familiar
with the CLUB case.
Had the Fire Department continued to allow scores of firefighters to wear
beards for medical reasons (which it had allowed at from at least the 1970s
until mid-2005), the case would have been over much sooner. But the
Department's lawyer realized that, and the (white) Chief decided that he'd
r
Having just read both opinions, which are quite remarkable, especially
Judge Williams' concurrence in the DC Cir opinion, I have to ask Art one
question-- It seems quite clear from the record that there really is a danger
to those with facial hair in responding to emergencies. You were cor
Marci-
I must be slow today.
1. Why does what I said "explain the district court's frustration with what
it was being asked to do"? If you're suggesting that the judge was pissed
at my clients (or at their lawyer) for having somehow caused the Fire
Department to make lots of other firefighters
Chris Lund writes:
> One question. If the Department eliminated the medical exception to make
> the law generally applicable and thus defeat the Free Exercise claim -
> then doesn't it then run afoul of the neutrality requirement? I mean, in such
> a case, the change was made "because of" and no
well, out of rfra and into ada? since it is a medical necessity not to
shave, the state runs into ada. it would seem that a closely cropped beard
would meet the medical need as opposed to a long beard which could be a
bigger problem.
steve
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:24 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> It wou
Art-- The all-clean-shaven rule does not violate the Constitution, but
could violate RFRA (but it does not necessarily have to). I don't think
you're saying that a RFRA violate was automatic following a finding of no
constitutional violation, right? So I think we're on the same page there
To say nothing of a race discrimination case, since this condition
apparently primarily affects African Americans.
Is this where the phrase "too clever by half" comes in?
Vance
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Steven Jamar wrote:
> well, out of rfra and into ada? since it is a medical necessit
I don't think the ADA would overcome a serious safety concern. It
requires reasonable accommodation, not strict scrutiny. As Art said, there
was
serious evidence at trial and in the supporting papers showing safety is a
problem if someone is not clean shaven. Once again, I think Judge
In a message dated 6/22/09 1:31:13 PM, Hamilton02 writes:
> I have to ask Art one question-- It seems quite clear from the record
> that there really is a danger to those with facial hair in responding to
> emergencies
>
Those not interested in the minutiae of the case can press delete now
Art-- We may only be talking to each other at this point, but the facts
matter in these cases. So why do you think DC moved to an across-the-board
rule regarding beards and why does the rule appear in fire companies across
the country? If it was all a pretext, why not just give up and let
e
Mark did not say that the remedy must always be to extend the exemption; only
that the court has a choice. Justice Harlan's opinion in Welsh v. United
States talks at length about this choice, and the factors that should inform
the court's judgment. He disagreed with the Court's interpretati
I know them, and I will pass on the suggestion. I'm not sure they will see
much in it for them.
Quoting artspit...@aol.com:
> On a more practical note, does anyone know who represented the parties in
> this Texas case, and whether one of them (or ideally, both together) might
> petition the
Pretext suggests they did it out of hostility to Islam, or to religion. Maybe
so. Far more likely, they made a judgment in which they placed zero value on
religous liberty, and focused only on whatever safety risk there was, however
small or remote. Facts matter, as Marci said, and the domi
> Marci asks: Why [didn't the Fire Dep't] just give up and let everyone
> wear a beard?
>
Because (a) that would mean admitting they were wrong, and (b) a Fire Dep't
is a paramilitary organization and the two new chiefs from out of town who
imposed this policy think beards look scuzzy -- the new
How many examples there are depends on what the Supreme Court finally says that
Smith means. If Marci gets her way, and Smith requires anti-religious motive
that can be proved in court, then there are many examples. If the opinion
means what it says, and the compelling interest test applies
Smith says any generally applicable neutral law (one not targeting religion)
need only pass rational basis, no matter what the effect on religion.
Marci, do you really not see the potential for significant governmental
impinging on religion from this? Or do you think all laws will have
exceptions
This e-mail reveals a very important fact. A new chief arrived who said rules
are rules and no exceptions. This is a very common story -- exemptions are
granted and cause no problems, the institution functions just fine and its
employees, students, clients, whatever, can practice their relig
The compelling interest test applies when there are secular exceptions, or
exceptions for other religions, but no exception for the religion that is
complaining that it has not been accommodated.
Quoting Steven Jamar :
> Smith says any generally applicable neutral law (one not targeting reli
24 matches
Mail list logo
