Justice Stevens during oral argument was pretty clear that RLUIPA in the prison context just assured equal treatment of all faiths,not just those Ohio chose to accommodate though its chaplaincy program..Since Stevens views accommodation largely through the prism of discrimination,it is no surprise he thought prison RLUIPA constitutional. Marc
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 1:06 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Justice Stevens One possibility is that in Cutter and Gonzales, the equality protecting function of religious exemptions was much more apparent. Ohio openly said that it accommodated good religions in its prisons, but not the bad religions in which the plaintiffs participated; the state was pretty explicitly arguing for its right to designate good and bad religions. In Gonzales, the government never had a plausible explanation for why it exempted peyote but not hoasca. This sort of discrimination was not developed in the record in Boerne, which was up basically on the pleadings, and the city did not openly avow it the way Ohio did. Another possibility is that he was just confused in Boerne, and, less likely, that he eventually realized that. He said that an art museum owned by an atheist would not be protected by RFRA. But of course, an art museum owned by a Catholic almost certainly would not be protected by RFRA either. The relevant analogy to the church would be an atheist meeting house, which should be protected by RFRA, although many judges are reluctant to see it that way. Quoting Kevin Pybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Can someone shed light on why Justice Stevens in Boerne viewed RFRA as a > violation of the Establishment Clause but raised no EC problem with RLUIPA > in Cutter or RFRA in Gonzales? In Boerne he wrote that RFRA "provided the > Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This > governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden > by the First Amendment." Shouldn't this understanding have led him to also > object in Cutter and Gonzales? The answer's probably staring me in the face > but I don't see it. Thanks. > > > > Kevin Pybas > > Missouri State University > > > > Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713
_______________________________________________ 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.
