|
Just for the record-- I never said never can there be any burden on third
parties, rather that that burden should be assessed by the legislature.
There are arenas where the burden may never be tolerable, though,
e.g., there are few burdens on children's health or safety that can be
justified.
There is a broad sprectrum, of course. Exemptions for peyote
and religious headgear in the military create de minimis burdens on third
parties. Exemptions that permit churches to hide pedophiles from
unsuspecting parents and children are enormous burdens.
Marci
For those who believe accommodation can never entail any burdens on third parties, I wonder if they could explain why the constitutional right (or interest) is in free exercise of religion qualitatively different than these other examples. |
_______________________________________________ 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.
