For those not picking up on Philadelphia area stories, this might be of
interest, perhaps especially to those researching and writing in the area.
For some time, religious and other organizations have been feeding homeless
people at outdoor sites in Philadelphia. Citing public health and other
The city (in particular, the mayor) argue that operating the feeding stations
on the parkway could rob homeless people of dignity, spread food-borne
disease, and degrade the park with trash and human waste. The religious
organizations claim that this is a red herring because they have been
Jim, is this only a First Amendment claim? Or is there also a Pennsylvania
RFRA claim?
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
The Eleventh Circuit sees neither a free speech nor a free exercise
problem with time, place, and frequency restrictions on public
feedings in traditional public fora. First Vagabonds Church of God v.
City of Orlando, 638 F.3d 756 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (assuming
without deciding that
There is also a Pennsylvania RFRA claim. The ACLU's complaint is at
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Chosen300Complaint.pdf
I hope that helps,
Allen Asch
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
OOPS, ACLU complaint at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Chosen300Complaint.pdf
-Original Message-
From: Allen Asch aa...@aol.com
To: religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 9:17 am
Subject: Re: Ban on Feeding Homeless
There is also a Pennsylvania RFRA claim. The
Doug, I don't know. I tried to find the actual complaint but it's not yet
available, as best as I can tell. The second-hand reports - in print as well as
on radio and television - refer to First Amendment and I've not heard any
reference to the Pennsylvania RFRA (but that doesn't mean it's not
Thanks, Allen. For some reason none of my search “techniques” pulled that up.
Jim Maule
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Allen Asch
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:17 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Ban on Feeding
Hi,
Just a couple of general thoughts:
1. Most everyone, including Eugene, admits that parents are empowered
within broad limits to make all sorts of major decisions, inlcuding
decisions with likely irreversible consequences, on behalf of their
minor children. These include decisions
Perry: very helpful. Would you add this as a third category?: if the state
demonstrates that many (most) adult men regret their parents' decision to
circumcise. It's if and when that ever happens -- not before -- that this will
seem like a difficult question.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul
I would think that a distinction between physical alteration of
a child's body and other actions would indeed be a sensible one (though not
always a dispositive one), and one that is consistent with our general view
that physical alteration of another's body is an especially
Here is the section of the California Penal Code I believe Eugene is talking
about:
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 653
[cid:image001.gif@01CD5F9B.395E66B0]§ 653. Tattooing person under age 18
Every person who tattoos or offers to tattoo a person under the age of 18 years
is guilty of a
12 matches
Mail list logo
