Roberta: This would almost certainly be exclusively a question of state
law, wherever it arises (if it ever does). There first would have to be a
state or local ordinance prohibiting such discrimination; and then also a
state RFRA, or a state constitutional free exercise provision that has been
: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: landlord/tenant law and RFRA
Roberta: This would almost certainly be exclusively a question of state law,
wherever it arises (if it ever does). There first would have to be a state or
local ordin
Of Laycock, H Douglas
(hdl5c)
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: landlord/tenant law and RFRA
Thanks Eugene; I had forgotten some of those cases.
For whatever reason, the litigation shifted from landlords to wedding ven
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: landlord/tenant law and RFRA
Wasn’t Jasniowski also vacated, there by the state supreme
court, 174 Ill. 2d 563 (1997) (“In the exercise of this Court's supervisory
authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to va
k, H Douglas
(hdl5c)
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: landlord/tenant law and RFRA
McCready v, Hoffius was vacated on rehearing and remanded for further
consideration of the compelling interest issue.
But I agree with Ma
: @robertakwall
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:02 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: landlord/tenant law and RFRA
Fair enough - the wedding ven
345249
>
>
>
> Twitter: @robertakwall
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Volokh, Eugene
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:02 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues
