That's right
Marc
- Original Message -
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Tue Jun 09 19:57:17 2009
Subject: RE: Illinois RFRA
Probably was Lyght v Hankins
s...@queenschurches.org
Rev. N. J. L'Heureux, Jr.
Executive Director
Probably was Lyght v Hankins
s...@queenschurches.org
Rev. N. J. L'Heureux, Jr.
Executive Director
Queens Federation of Churches
86-17 105th Street
Richmond Hill, New York 11418-1597
Voice (718) 847-6764
FAX (718) 847-7392
Visit our Web site at http://www.QueensChurches.org/
_
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 o
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
