Justice Stevens

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/23/2008 1:58:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
laycockd at umich.edu writes:

To be  protected by RFRA, a Catholic owner of an art museum would have to 
show that  the museum is an exercise of religion.  That's imaginable, but as I 
think  about the actual art museums I know anything about, none of them would  
qualify, no matter who owned them.


I think RLUIPA has made this a much fuzzier line.  Now that the  definition 
of exercise of religion has been explicitly expanded to include  anything at 
all, whether central or not, the arguments for the application of  RLUIPA are 
quite expansive.  For example, multi-family dwelling units  justified as 
religiously based because of a belief in large families or  dormitories justified 
because those living in them will be attending a religious  elementary school or 
high school.  It would not be hard to argue that the  display of art is an 
extension of the person's religious beliefs; it would be a  free speech plus free 
exercise argument, just like the arguments that churches  are places of 
expression, so there is a hybrid right for a church building in an  area otherwise 
not zoned.
 
Marci



**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080623/d7101cdd/attachment.htm