Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided May 19, 1993No. 29-90; CA A68770Published
1Concurrence
EDMONDS, J.,
specially concurring.
The lead opinion holds that petitioner was deprived of his rights of freedom to worship and freedom to express religious opinion under Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution by the Bureau of Labor and Industries’ (BOLI) sanction. Although I concur that petitioner’s right to express his religious opinion was unconstitutionally interfered with when BOLI fined him $3,000 for expressing his beliefs to his employee, I write separately to express my differences with the lead opinion’s analysis.
The lead opinion says much that is unnecessary and much…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Shelton v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human ResourcesOregon Supreme Court · 1984
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.