Kiryas Joel vs. The Pope -Reply

[Michael McConnell]

Sorry to put Chip Lupu to the trouble of explaining, but I
still do not understand in what respects he thinks the
executive and legislative branches are different.

Both legislature and executive are capable of acting in a
sect-specific, case-specific fashion, and both are capable
of framing accommodations in general terms. Chip thinks
that case-specific accommodations are unconstitutional and
that general accommodations are okay.  Promises to treat
future cases the same way are not binding in either case
unless imbedded in law (statutes if legislative;
regulations or their equivalent if executive) and even then
could be changed in the future if an odious religious group
comes along. So where is the difference?

(My problem with the general prohibition of case-specific
accommodations is practical. I think such accommodations
are frequently beneficent and that it is not always
possible to frame a general rule. When commercial
rock-climbing licenses at Devil's Tower are banned for one
month while the Sioux use the Tower for worship, what is
the "general rule"? When Muslim soldiers fasting and not
drinking water during Ramadan are excused from some
physical exercises, what is the "general rule"? I am all
for general rules when they are feasible, but I agree with
Abner that when they are not, we should wait for proof of
unequal treatment before we assume that government will act
unconstitutionally. The cost is a failure to accommodate
legitimate free exercise rights.)
-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)