t; [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> ] *On
> Behalf Of *Hillel Y. Levin
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 08, 2014 3:12 AM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: FW: Religious Exemption From Vaccination Policy Requires
> Acceptance of Secular Reasons
, 2014 3:12 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FW: Religious Exemption From Vaccination Policy Requires
Acceptance of Secular Reasons As Well
Eugene:
Are you asking whether religion is a one way ratchet? Under at least one
reading of Smith/Lukumi, as typified in the Ten
Eugene:
Are you asking whether religion is a one way ratchet? Under at least one
reading of Smith/Lukumi, as typified in the Tenafly eruv case, if there are
(at least some kinds of) secular exceptions, then there must also be a
religious exception. But if there is a religious exception, must there
Marty's comment below suggests that Employment Division v. Smith sets
the right standard. Consider this paragraph of Marty;s:
"Assume that a state actor, such as a legislature or a state employer,
granted a religious-only exemption to a vaccination requirement. This
actually happens quite fr
Well, the opinion is a complete mess, and might not best be read as a
constitutional decision at all. It does, however, suggest a lurking
interesting question about religious accommodations and vaccinations,
albeit one not raised by this case.
This is an unemployment compensation case involving a
Any thoughts on this New Jersey case? (Note that the court’s
rationale focused not on the Establishment Clause as such, but rather on the
conclusion that “The Board's decision upholding appellant's termination
unconstitutionally discriminated against appellant's freedom of expres
