As a corollary to my question, I would raise the issue that while tax exemption and access to existing infrastructure, could potentially be changed or adjusted, couldn't building infrastructure with state funds under an "equal protection" theory create a permanent easement, as it were, where non-discrimination would exist in perpetuity and the church could not, at will, destroy the state-funded infrastructure for the improper purpose of rebooting the right to discriminate?
Under this, a state-funded painting on a wall could be moved to another facility if it "isn't working out," a church could opt-out of a temporary funding scheme the next time, but state-funded concrete foundations would exist for centuries, wouldn't it? Certainly while there are arguments that the government can move in to regulate, existing examples are few and far between. But with an application for "equal protection" funding, it would appear that churches would voluntarily surrender the point that is virtually impossible to defend unless a court is willing to adopt a cognitively dissonate position that the "state may not discriminate when it comes to funding churches, but churches may discriminate in the use of the same funding." I don't think the churches have thought this out very well in advance - like the Biblical Esau they could be selling control of their facilities for a bowl of porridge. Michael Peabody, Esq. ReligiousLiberty.TV _______________________________________________ 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.
