Somewhat puzzling D.C. Cir. follow-up on the Henderson T-shirt
David E. Guinn
davideguinn at YAHOO.COM
Thu Oct 11 14:50:11 PDT 2001
I agree with Jim's analysis right up until he avers that the restriction on the sales IS a substantial burden. If we took the case out of the religious freedom context and applied Free Speech standards (which to my way of thinking almost always recieve the highest standard of review comparable to what RFRA was seeking), I don't think there is any question that a Free Speech claimant would also fail because there is no substantial burden. This is more along a time place and manner restriction (i.e. limit to free distribution or off the mall.)
I agree with David Cruz that to privelege religion qua religion more than we would privelege one of the secular religions (usually protected under free speech or association) invites backlash.
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
5032 N. Glenwood Ave. #3
Chicago, IL 60640
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw