Cal RFRA & discrimination

[Jim Maule]

"Lupu, Ira (Chip)" <iclupu at MAIN.NLC.GWU.EDU> writes

[snip]
>  Now, if a
> state RFRA had a long list of such exemptions, and what they had in
> common was their impact on a particular religious tradition so that
> adherents to that religion were effectively excluded from the
> statute's general protection, we might have a different story.

But doesn't this raise the rather anomalous result that if there are
many exemptions that a denomination/sect with practice far different
than "mainstream society" is more likely to be the (un)intended
target of the statute whereas a denomination/sect that is only a bit
different is more likely to be denied relief because the impact is
much less severe?

For example, assume a sect believes in the necessity of monastic-cell
living in an isolated rural area with prohibitions on speaking with
anyone who is not an "elder" of the sect, prohibitions on travel
beyond the sect's property, etc. These folks have a set of religious
beliefs that pretty much excludes them from a lot of activities. Nor
can a government itself or persons so required by the government
succeed in accomodating these folks, because by definition they are,
in a sense, removing themselves from society. So they are permitted
to practice their religion but they won't get very much else from the
government or from society? Does that pose a threat to the First
Amendment schema? Does it require a re-thinking of what a RFRA should
or can do?

Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova, PA 19085
maule at law.vill.edu
http://www.cilp.org/~maule
(610) 519 - 7135