UnGodly Zoning: A Non-weird Hypo

[richard duncan]

Sandy writes:>
> I'm sorry.  I think I read Rick's hypo too quickly.  If he is simply
> educating his own children, then I agree with him that it would be
> overreaching to impose the "no schools" zoning on him.  I had (wrongly)
> assumed that at least one child from another family was using the facilities
> as well.  Does this mean, incidentally, that Rick would concede the
> legitimacy of the zoning law against a joint homeschooling involving, say,
> the Duncans and the family next door?
> _____________________

Sandy concedes that a zoning law that prevented my family from
educating our own children at home (as an impermissible
non-residential "school" use) would be a substantial burden triggering
RFRA. He suggests that a joint homeschooling arrangement with the
family next door would materially change the context, and that there
would be no RFRA burden in that case. I disagree.

I think a religiously motivated cooperative (and non-commercial)
home school is still a core case under RFRA (just as my Bible study
with 10-12 people is a core case). Neighbors coming together to pray
or teach their children are not similar to someone opening a commercial
Christian bookstore in a residential neighborhood. Similarly, if I
occasionally loan a few books out of my personal library to a neighbor
it is not the same as operating a commercial lending library out of my
home. The 1A may not be burdened by zoning laws that forbid bookstores
and commercial lending libraries in residential neighborhoods. But I
believe it would violate the 1A for the state to forbid me from
lending books to my neighbors out of my personal collection . Does Sandy
agree?

--
                   ----------
             Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)


"We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless
modern philosopher....Thieves respect property. They merely wish the
property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect
it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to
destroy the very idea of personal possession."
         --G.K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday