No specific discussion of the "least restrictive means" requirement. Did Stutzman make any argument in that regard?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: > One initial observation: While much of the ground in the opinion has > previously been covered by courts in New Mexico and Colorado, this case > involved one issue not present in prior "wedding vendor" cases: an > exemption claim under a state constitutional provision that has been > interpreted to require strict scrutiny post-Smith of burdens imposed by > neutral and generally applicable laws (see pages 42-53 of the opinion). > > - Jim > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) < > hd...@virginia.edu> wrote: > >> Unanimous affirmance. >> >> >> >> https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent >> >> >> >> Douglas Laycock >> >> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law >> >> University of Virginia Law School >> >> 580 Massie Road >> >> Charlottesville, VA 22903 >> >> 434-243-8546 <(434)%20243-8546> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
