1. If the county clerk refuses to issue restaurant licenses to
any restaurant that was not halal, that might constitute discrimination based
on the religious practices followed by a restaurant, and would violate the
Establishment Clause’s “no religious decisions” principle by requiring a
government official to decide what is halal and what is not.
2. If the county clerk simply refuses to issue licenses to any
establishment that serves alcohol, he might be violating state law, assuming
that he has a nondiscretionary duty to issue licenses. But he isn’t violating
the federal constitution, any more than a county clerk who disapproves of
alcohol for secular purposes is violating the federal constitution. What
secular people are free to do based on their philosophical judgment, Muslims
are free to do based on their religious judgment.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 10:04 AM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene
How about this hypothetical:
Let's say we elected a very conservative Muslim as a county clerk. Assume the
county clerk is the only one who issues licenses for restaurants and issues
liquor licenses. Assume this clerk refused to issue restaurant licenses to any
restaurant that was not halal or or to any establishment that served alcohol.
Non-halal restaurants are legal as is serving alcohol in the state.
_______________________________________________
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.
