sports attire and religious modesty

[Douglas Laycock]

  What a mess.  If the rule is accurately quoted (a big if given all
the disagreement about what actually happened and who said what), the
rule does not preclude her covering her body; it precludes two colors
instead of one in the cloth that does the covering.  So she could
comply with the rule and with her faith if anyone had taken the time
to work this out.

  Assuming the state had a rule that said she cannot cannot run
wearing more than shorts and a t-shirt, it is hard to imagine
nonfrivolous state interests in enforcing such a requirement.  The
extra clothing is extra weight; it's a disadvantage for her rather
than an advantage.  There's a reason why runners wear skimpy outfits
and the Greeks ran nude.  But under Smith, total lack of a state
interest doesn't matter, unless the state has made a secular
exception for somebody else.

  Quoting Steven Jamar <stevenjamar at gmail.com>:

> Does the constitution require the state to allow this Muslim woman
to run
> when not wearing the proper uniform?
>
> Steve
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503356.html?hpid=moreheadlines[1]
>
> --
> Prof. Steven Jamar
> Howard University School of Law
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
------
[1] 
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F01%2F15%2FAR2008011503356.html%3Fhpid%3Dmoreheadlines

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080116/80b921f9/attachment.htm