Four people arrested during a November protest at the University of Arizona's Tech Park argued trespassing charges should dismissed because they were exercising their sincere beliefs and are protected under a federal law intended to protect religious freedom.
That’s an… interesting defense.
Under Arizona law, a person can be shielded from prosecution if they establish three elements: an otherwise illegal action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief; that belief is sincerely held, and the government’s actions substantially burdens their exercise of their religious beliefs.
Points 1 and 2 - I can grant both of those without a second thought.
Point 3 - eehhhhhhh, I’m not too sure. I can understand the argument, but I’m really not convinced that their exercise of religious beliefs were at risk.
I’d think it would be far easier to work with an intent angle here. Especially since, as the article notes, the area in question could be reasonably mistaken for public property.
It’s not to say I don’t think the charges should be dropped - I think they should. I’m just not convinced the defense chose a winning argument.
Somewhat related http://peyoteway.org/
This is precisely where that law applies! Thanks for the excellent example.
Time for things to start popping off
