Not the presidential candidate, but the lead plaintiff in Employment Division
v. Smith.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/elegy-for-an-american-hero-al-smith-smith-employment-division-supreme-court/383582/
One detail in Garrett's story is not quite right. Congress did not
I have heard that among the most prominent contractors the new Order might
affect are Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. Does anyone
know offhand what the policies of those two organizations are w/r/t
employees' sexual orientation and payment of benefits to same-sex spouses
-- or of
Eugene,
Two quick thoughts:
1.How about the cases like ACLU v. Reno, where filtering software is
the less restrictive alternative - doesn't that realistically impose a
financial burden on parents?
2. I think it can be argued that in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court
rejected
Thanks for posting this link. Powerful story we should all have noticed before.
By the way, I think the story gets it right when it says the drafters
of RFRA excluded one key religious group—the Native American Church.
The law was supposed to apply equally, but I don't remember hearing or
I don't know who was attending meetings; I was in Texas and not attending them
either. But the Native American Church of North America was a member of the
Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion.
It has been more than twnety years and memory is fading. But I think the NAC
decided fairly
