I greatly appreciate Rick's gracious and thoughtful
response. I hope that when he returns to South Bend he'll be able to fill
us in further on this question.
Rick's principal argument with respect to the "No
public money" provision of article 11, section 1 appears to be that "the provision
An equality basis for the religion clauses would make cases like Amos far
more problematic than they are under a liberty rationale.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Law
I was particularly pleased with footnote 8 in the majority opinion that
pointed out that Washington provides greater free exercise protection than
the federal constitution. Conceptually, this resonates with the argument
that there an important connection or equilibrium in interpreting the
Dear all,
I appreciate Marty's kind words, and accept his entirely appropriate
critique of my post yesterday regarding Davey. Marty is right to
remind us -- that is, to remind me -- that there are
two pertinent Washington Constitutional
provisions, both of which were included in the original
Defunct? Does Marci seriously think that the Supreme
Court would uphold a law that allowed the slaughter of animals for all but religious
reasons? What in Lukumi gives any credence to that idea? Or what after Lukumi
suggests otherwise?
Marc Stern
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL
I agree with Marci that the precedental force
of Lukumi has taken a
serious hit. But I don't think it's quite as severe as she suggests.
For one thing, it seems clear that Lukumi would continue to prohibit
religious discrimination, even absent proof of animus or hostility,where
the state
