On Monday 24 November 2008 11:55:53 am Thad Van Ry wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Nicholas Leippe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 24 November 2008 11:37:13 am Hans Fugal wrote: > > > Nicholas Leippe wrote: > > > > On Monday 24 November 2008 11:31:49 am Bryan Sant wrote: > > > >> Must be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day > > > >> Saints, currently worthy of a temple recommend > > > > > > > > Is that requirement even legal? > > The supreme court decided in 1987, that this was legal. The case was > "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop vs. Amos" > see http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/327/
Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification--I'd always wondered. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
