Alaska resumes wolf killing; SUES FRIENDS OF ANIMALS FOR CALLING TOURISM BOYCOTT
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:
by Gary L. Francione and Anna E. Charlton
Animal Rights Law Center
On June 11, 1993, the Supreme Court issued its decision concerning animal sacrifice in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. The next day, most major newspapers carried headlines proclaiming that the Court had held that animal sacrifice is protected by the First Amendment freedom of religion clause. Typical of those proclamations was the one splashed across the entire front cover of New York Newsday: “Top Court OKs Animal Sacrifice.” Reading the comments of major humane organizations in reaction to the decision, including those such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which have the police power to stop the infliction of cruelty on animals, we have been distressed to realize that the decision has been read far too broadly, and that
there is the mistaken impression that humane officers are now powerless to stop the brutalities of animal sacrifice. The Court’s opinion in Lukumi was somewhat convoluted and was confused by current disagreement among Justices concerning how the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion should be interpreted. In light of these misunderstandings, we have offered the resources of the Animal Rights Law Center to assist municipalities and concerned individuals to assess their options for working to protect animals from sacrifice.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993:
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993: