> On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:03 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > > 2. The “single grocer in town” hypothetical may be relevant to the > compelling government interest inquiry – maybe one could argue that the > government has a compelling interest in making sure that everyone has access > to food without having to drive to the next town, and therefore requiring the > grocer to sell to the KKK sympathizers, or for that matter to sell food that > he knows will be used at the KKK picnic. But in the much more typical town > in which there are many grocers, most of which are quite happy to sell to > anyone who has the money, denying the exemption isn’t necessary to serve the > government interest.
Is there legal precedence establishing this hypothetical into law? It seems to me that it may apply to the county clerk who is refusing to issue any marriage licenses or allow any assistant to issue them and instead send couples to the next county.
_______________________________________________ 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.
