LogFAQs > #901872901

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Lawsuit: Muslim prisoners being given meager food, pork products during Ramadan
Kazi1212 05/23/18 7:41:41 PM #45:	ThePieReborn posted... Kazi1212 posted... ThePieReborn posted... _Goggalor_ posted... Why is this an issue? Because the law does protect the rights of prisoners to practice their faiths to an extent. To an extent being the key here. Does accommodating religious dietary needs fall into that category? I guess well see what the courts say Numerous federal circuits have held as much, and this is just a half-assed glance at Westlaw. See: Nelson v. Miller (2009) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1362058.html Cotton v. Cate (2014) http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/06/16/12-15829.pdf LaFevers v. Saffle (1991) https://casetext.com/case/lafevers-v-saffle Tl;dr, the state needs a compelling state end to justify deprivation of capacity to practice religious tenets. For example, beard length restrictions are okay because of the safety risk of shit being hidden. Thanks, this is the kind of data I was looking for. --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:901872901] in Lawsuit: M... [t:76636389]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThePieReborn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ThePieReborn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>_Goggalor_ posted...</cite> <quote>Why is this an issue?</quote> Because the law does protect the rights of prisoners to practice their faiths to an extent.</quote> To an extent being the key here. Does accommodating religious dietary needs fall into that category? I guess well see what the courts say</quote> Numerous federal circuits have held as much, and this is just a half-assed glance at Westlaw. See: Nelson v. Miller (2009) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1362058.html Cotton v. Cate (2014) http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/06/16/12-15829.pdf LaFevers v. Saffle (1991) https://casetext.com/case/lafevers-v-saffle Tl;dr, the state needs a compelling state end to justify deprivation of capacity to practice religious tenets. For example, beard length restrictions are okay because of the safety risk of shit being hidden.</quote> Thanks, this is the kind of data I was looking for. --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1