Talk:Employment Division v. Smith

Untitled
Might be worth adding Boerne (521 U.S. 507) to the discussion of this case, since Boerne was effectively the end of this story (Employment Division v. Smith -> RFRA -> City of Boerne). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.131.194 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this page is not very useful for the average reader. I just finished a week of study on this case alone and found this page to be more dense than the text of the case itself. I would suggest at least including a "brief" section that lists individual rules and policies behind the holding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.46.17 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be considered editorializing?
The article states, "However, the Supreme Court did not find that this principle also applied when the conduct in question is justifiably prohibited by law." Would it be considered editorializing to note the Supreme Court did not explain how the conduct was "justifiably prohibited by law." when the Oregeon Supreme Court had held the prohibition was unconstitutional?

Assuming, for the moment, the Supreme Court majority opinion did say, "justifiably prohibited by law." I'd have to reread the opinion to see if it did use this phrase and I'm not willing to put myself through that again right now. -- Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Current Oregon law on religious use of peyote
Oregon Revised Statutes

475.840

(4) In any prosecution under this section for manufacture, possession or delivery of that plant of the genus Lophophora commonly known as peyote, it is an affirmative defense that the peyote is being used or is intended for use:

(a) In connection with the good faith practice of a religious belief;

(b) As directly associated with a religious practice; and

(c) In a manner that is not dangerous to the health of the user or others who are in the proximity of the user.

(5) The affirmative defense created in subsection (4) of this section is not available to any person who has possessed or delivered the peyote while incarcerated in a correctional facility in this state.

[Formerly 475.992]

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/475.html

It seems appropriate to note this as the article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregonand WikiProject Law.

Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added this essentially unchanged to the article. It's relevant and almost certainly a result of the cases involved. If someone could add information about when and why the Oregon law was changed that would improve the new section. Was the change due to the US Supreme Court case? Was it due to the Oregon State Supreme Court case that held the prohibition of religious use unconstitutional? Was there some other reason for the change that was not directly or only partly a response to court decision(s)? -- Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

POV-check
The article seems to be editorializing when it says that if the Supreme court "permitted a wide approach, it would be quite easy for citizens to evade . . . child abuse laws, drug laws, minimum wage laws, animal cruelty laws, and anti-discrimination laws." I will have to check to see if the decision actually says that. If you check before I do, and find that it does, then feel free to replace the POV tag that I added to the article with a page-number cite (and if those are Mr. Scalia's exact words, then please use quotation marks). 68.55.112.31 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)