In a message dated 6/23/2008 1:58:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be protected by RFRA, a Catholic owner of an art museum would have to show that the museum is an exercise of religion. That's imaginable, but as I think about the actual art museums I know anything about, none of them would qualify, no matter who owned them. I think RLUIPA has made this a much fuzzier line. Now that the definition of exercise of religion has been explicitly expanded to include anything at all, whether central or not, the arguments for the application of RLUIPA are quite expansive. For example, multi-family dwelling units justified as religiously based because of a belief in large families or dormitories justified because those living in them will be attending a religious elementary school or high school. It would not be hard to argue that the display of art is an extension of the person's religious beliefs; it would be a free speech plus free exercise argument, just like the arguments that churches are places of expression, so there is a hybrid right for a church building in an area otherwise not zoned. Marci **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
_______________________________________________ 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.
