The second circuit held in a split decision somehow dissenting that FRA displaced the ministerial exCeption. Somehow would have held it did not but in the course of so arguing unnecessarily argued FRA did not apply in private lawsuits brought under federal statutes. I do not remember the name of the case Marc stern
----- Original Message ----- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Cc: lawyer2...@aol.com <lawyer2...@aol.com> Sent: Tue Jun 09 19:14:20 2009 Subject: Re: Illinois RFRA Doug: Wondering if there is any word on the Michigan rule regarding witness/party attire (veiled muslim incident)? Also, do you have readily available a cite to Illinois' RFRA and a thought on whether it is properly invoked as a defense in a civil lawsuit which asks the court to find and employment or other supervisory relationship between a minister and a religious judicatory (in effect, declaring what the faith's polity or governance structure is as opposed to what the faith says it is) and thereby awarding monetary damages to plaintiff from the judicatory for wrongful acts by the minister? I have the same question as far as Texas RFRA is concerned.... --Don Clark ________________________________ Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar <http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004> for local deals at your fingertips.
_______________________________________________ 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.
