California RFRA and discrimination exemption

[David Cruz]

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Eugene Volokh wrote:

>     A few somewhat disjointed thoughts:
> [snip]
>
>     6)  All this of course assumes that the Free Exercise Clause does
> not, by its own force, command accommodations; I take it this should
> be our working assumption for purposes of discussing California's
> RFPA, given that otherwise the whole law would be a bit pointless.

What about the California Constitution's religious freedom guarantee?  I
think it may have been Mosk concurring in Smith v. FEHC who suggested that
the California Supreme Court has not authoritatively resolved whether
exemptions are state-constitutionally compelled (in some set of
appropriate circumstances).  However, I believe there are some California
precedents suggesting that state law incorporates a Sherbert-like regime.
If it does, does that mean CA-RFRA would be "a bit pointless"?  I'm not
certain.  Perhaps the legislature wants religious freedom claims to be
resolved on statutory grounds so as to make it easier for legislative
"correction" when the Court "errs."  (Then again, nothing would keep the
CA Supremes from reaching state constitutional claims raised by litigants
if they were really so inclined.)

Just wondering.

-David Cruz, USC Law (Cal.)