Comments on: What if Davis v Locke arose in Utah? https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2003/12/what-if-idavis-v-lockei-arose-in-utah/ Truth Will Prevail Mon, 06 Aug 2018 17:29:28 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 By: Adam Greenwood https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2003/12/what-if-idavis-v-lockei-arose-in-utah/#comment-11057 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=136#comment-11057 The short answer is that I don’t know what the court would rule.

But can you imagine a Utah legislature that sly and ruthless? Wooh! As far as I can tell, the motto of the state government is “Don’t make waves!” so the only people who ever come up with radical ideas are the ones so on the margins that they don’t know how to communicate and situate them.

]]>
By: Nate https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2003/12/what-if-idavis-v-lockei-arose-in-utah/#comment-11058 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=136#comment-11058 I read the Lithwick article and I thought that she missed the point. The silliness of this case is exhibit one in why the turn to anti-discrimination norms in Smith was such a dumb move. I have also blogged a bit on this in the more juristic “A Good Oman”:

http://goodoman.blogspot.com/2003_11_30_goodoman_archive.html#107046767001075521

]]>
By: Nate https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2003/12/what-if-idavis-v-lockei-arose-in-utah/#comment-11059 Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=136#comment-11059 One law professor posted this today on Eugene Volokh’s law and religion list. An interesting angle:

Doesn’t Locke v. Davey involve an unconstitutional condition, in that the scholarship money (roughly $1500 a year) is not made available to a theology major even for his nonreligious courses and expenses? (Davey in fact had declared a double major, in business as well as pastoral ministries.) Or, to put the matter differently, a theology major cannot use his own resources to pay for his religious training without forfeiting the scholarship money that is available to other students. If so, doesn’t this distinguish the abortion funding cases, in the which the government declines to fund a particular activity as such? And doesn’t it further suggest that the Court should rule in Davey’s favor without having to reach the broader issue of whether a state can refuse to extend a general program of funding to religious instruction as such?

]]>