In the wake of same-sex marriage legalization, most religious conservatives realize that they now share a minority viewpoint on many social issues. Such change has forced those formerly trying to forestall social evolution to instead seek legal recusal from engaging in matters that conflict with their religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, these recent legislative attempts to “affirm” religious free expression all focus upon the rights of the religious adherent, while mostly failing to consider the potential harm to third parties. In the provision of government services, this omission can do significant, lasting damage to public perceptions of administrative legitimacy—often already perilously maligned. Should government officials be legally obligated to grant their employees religious accommodations that they know will result in negative public perceptions, or worse, inflict dignitary harm among citizens seeking its services? This book draws attention to the threat to effective government that proposed expansions to religious accommodation laws can create. From damaging public opinion, to the myriad implementation concerns such as what even constitutes a religious belief to be accommodated, these challenges should serve as a warning to legislators and religious accommodation advocates to reconsider application of these enhanced obligations to the civil service.

On what grounds should religious accommodation claims be limited? When do religious claims harm the autonomy of others? This book proposes an original model of religious accommodation which can be applied in secular liberal democracies where religious diversity has been a hotly contested issue. Addressing the complex question of limitations to the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief and how these limitations might be determined, it examines how religious claims can harm the autonomy of others and emphasises the need for an appropriate balancing of competing interests. Drawing on a range of case study examples from jurisdictions including the US, Canada, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union's Court of Justice, the UK, Germany and France, this is a timely contribution to the debate on how a legal duty or policy approach in favour of religious accommodation can be applied in practice. Moreover, the proposed model offers criteria that may be used to guide the implementation of equality and diversity policies in contexts such as employment and education. The book will be of interest to academics, legal practitioners and policy-makers in the field.

(a) Design and construction. (1) Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if the construction was commenced after January 26, 1992. (2) Exception for structural impracticability. (i) Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where a public entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features. (ii) If full compliance with this section would be structurally impracticable, compliance with this section is required to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. In that case, any portion of the facility that can be made accessible shall be made accessible to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. (iii) If providing accessibility in conformance with this section to individuals with certain disabilities (e.g., those who use wheelchairs) would be structurally impracticable, accessibility shall nonetheless be ensured to persons with other types of disabilities, (e.g., those who use crutches or who have sight, hearing, or mental impairments) in accordance with this section.

Religious exemptions have a long history in American law, but have become especially controversial over the last several years. The essays in this volume address the moral and philosophical issues that the legal practice of religious exemptions often raises.

The 1996 Supplement of Political Science Abstracts contains 10,000 carefully prepared abstracts of materials from public affairs magazines, major newspapers, professional journals, and books devoted to politics and political analysis. The organization of the proceeding volumes has been retained intact, as has the recently added list of subdisciplinary descriptors. Users of earlier volumes will be on familiar ground, while those new to Political Science Abstracts will find the instructions on page ix easy to master. CONTENTS Volume 1 (This Volume) How to Use This Supplement . ix Political Science Subdisciplinary Descriptors xi Index of Terms ............... . xiii Abstracts of Documents in This Supplement. Volume 2 Bibliographic Index to the Abstracts (ABILITY-MINNESOTA) . 821 Volume 3 Bibliographic Index to the Abstracts (MINORITY-ZULU) 1565 Author Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2119 List of Periodicals Abstracted in This Supplement. 2121 HOW TO USE THIS SUPPLEMENT Three simple steps are all that are needed to introduce the user to this easily accessible indexing system. STEP 1: Turn to the Index of Terms and locate as many terms as possible that deal with your subject. If you are interested in coverage of a more generic nature, you may instead turn to the next page, where key descriptors are listed that are associated with the major subject areas in political science and with their subdivisions. Note that the index includes methodological as well as topical terms. Numerical listings (e.g., 24TH/PAR/C) are located at the end of the alphabetical listing.