that comply with his views of islam no less than they do with the religious views of fellow inmates who receive such meals as a matter of course the a t o sees sole reason for denying this accommodation is that mr chikor irrespective of his personal dilemma of either converting to judaism in order to obtain kosher meat eating the regular meat that is prohibited by his faith or eating vegetarian meals that compromise both his medical condition and his ability to engage in religious observance  allow the prison to function on a reasonably operative basis and i wonder whether you've been able to talk to your client about what would meet the definition so far as your client is concerned and presumably a large number of practicing muslims well i can't speak to the large number your honor i believe on this record in fact the indications are that it would not be a large number of islamic inmates who would subscribe to mr kors view that kosher meat doesn't constitute hall but speaking specifically for mr and indeed that's what the a t o sees authority seem to point to is that mainstream islam or the majority prevailing  understand the supreme court's instruction judge or law and it seems quite consistent really the inquiry at the threshold is twofold number one is the belief sincerely held by the individual in question mr mistress of course here there's no dispute about that we don't economically or otherwise burdensome on the department to exceed your client's request when the first point you are talking is that the the rationale in question the cost rationale doesn't match up with the burden in question the burden specifically is denying and this is returning to your question judge a scam and kosher meat would satisfy mr c core and his views of islam and so judge hawkins all of the proof that's been offered by the prison goes to what would happen if eight hundred fifty islamic inmates were to prevent be provided the same kosher meals that seems a non sequitur because there's been no showing by the president that indeed accommodating mr should core alone based upon his specific circumstances and beliefs would necessarily result in the same accommodation the kosher meals were such that if you multiply that by the additional number of islamic inmates you would arrive at the idiocies cost estimate but but judge hawkins we believe that as a matter of law cost you know itself untethered to anything more insufficient rationale and certainly it's an insufficient rationale for deciding that a certain benefit will be provided to one religion whereas other disfavored relatedness are not entitled to the same benefit even where the cost of accommodating their religious for the district court benefit council are there any other claims arising out of the arizona system which raise similar issues or are we dealing just with one in here and to the muslim faith out of eight hundred fifty in the system well you know i can't speak to that with confidence i just am and i can say that i think this record is such that mr c corps claim is unique to him both in terms of his beliefs and also in terms of his it's the overall lack a vegetarian diet that seems to be the prevailing one for the a t o c and we know that that is proved detrimental to mr core both in terms of his ability to exercise his faith and in terms of his medical condition and i want to kid you might want to reserve some time you may do so  thank you judge just downwind my name is kathy stewart and i represent this pistols at the arizona department of corrections i assume that dora shire o is still the superintendent of the director of the department yes she is as a matter of fact the caption reflects terry stewart he hasn't been the director for some time right that's absolutely you provide that to the clerk as you leave the courtroom well your honor thank you and there's no relation between mr stewart and myself i represent prison officials who are responsible for applying this set of policies established to accommodate religious exercises and as we know is recognized under the constitution and entire body  denied what was the theory under which the warden denied kosher meal to this individual your honor that's a good question really what we have here is an inmate expressed preference to be provided with a portion of a menu designed to accommodate the dietary laws of judaism which is known as keeping kosher and he's done it not because it's required by his religion but merely because it doesn't violate his distinguish between his belief that it would be consistent whole all is permitted i mean any things are permitted it's not mandated in other words what the authority  is some sort of infringement on exercise that either forces and then made a religious adherent to violate i forbid a commandment or forbidden aspect of the religion or prevents them from complying with  relevant consideration it's nice to be religious exercise and discourse counsel is correct when he says that it does what's required is that it's a religious belief and his sincerity but that's not really what's at issue here that's to uphold the trial court in this case the court does not need to question the sincerity of this belief that kosher meat would be permitted and it doesn't have to choose between those analysis it just doesn't seem to be something that we ought to be able to impose can you help us with something a little less complex that would give guidance to the warden at the same time accommodate the sincere religious beliefs of an inmate and i'm trying your honor and i think the problem here is that mr chick or nowhere has suggested that this is a requirement of this religion but why should that if it's passed white why should that be essentially on its head if an inmate was allowed to pick and choose amongst the religions those things that are consistent with his beliefs but are more to his liking in this case he would prefer not to be a vegetarian he would prefer if in fact this is a mandate of the religion we would have to provide it to eight hundred fifty and actually were here a couple of years after that estimate so many more than that in terms of muslim inmates and there's no question that that would be burdensome the at a minimum one point five million dollars and if it was actually a provision of whole law meat it would be many millions of dollars and that's not disputed anywhere in the record secondly before you leave literally and i believe the majority majority position as indicated there is a majority view would be that it is neat that at the time of sacrifice has the name of allah pronounced over it and i believe there are a number of other requirements as well and the problem in this is the other aspect of the penal logical interest being served here is that it's not a requirement of this religion and therefore the department isn't forcing him to violate a tenet of his religion by providing a vegetarian meal or prohibiting him from complying with a dietary law then it would be imposing this burden on the department to assess every inmate suggestion that his own personal belief requires that he be provided with something that doesn't violate his religion you know that's all that falls right into as a as applied challenge what's lee department's response some portion of flatulence normal bodily function is actually being caused by the tarion diet and would be relieved so to speak by adding a meat portion selected from the kosher diet designed to abide by dietary laws of judaism then that is something to be resolved by the medical authorities in the present as to whether there is a least bur minimise cost that could address that here we have a request that the entire policy either be thrown aside or that the department be required to evaluate every individual inmates food preference in terms of he'd prefer to have as long as it's consistent with his religious beliefs and would make him more comfortable that that's what we have here is mr couper is indicating that the department's denial of his request to have a food item added to his vegetarian diet certainly is in compliance with his religious belief there's no question that the vegetarian diet does not violate the tenets of muslim what he wants is to add a meat portion from the kosher diet because he would prefer to eat meat because it is consistent with his beliefs what's the difference i don't understand i don't understand the difference between those two categories the vegetarian doesn't violate kosher doesn't violate so why don't you give him a first of all the kosher diet was not designed to ensure that jewish inmates a tainted meat it was designed to comply with those jewish inmates wishing to keep kosher suppose that's an entire it doesn't well i think it's very similar to what what mr sheen other words take the kosher religion thing off the table it's another diet it's at the institution it's provided to other inmates and this individual s you have given me affects me personally medically and violates my religion but that that you're providing right next door does not mean i have that how what's the pain a logical interest in denying the request  i think that that's highly illustrative of why there is a relaxed test for evaluating these kinds of religious exercise claims it's because there should be deference provided to the present in dealing with thirty thousand in infringement of the religious beliefs this court has even recognize the difference between curtailing an exercise of their religion as opposed to forcing someone to kosher meat not a single court has done it and several have found that it is not required and it is not a substantial burden but we don't have a hollow issue before us in this case doing what we do in the sense that that's what hundred fifty inmates not all of the jewish inmates request kosher but but it's readily available in terms of the prison kitchen and that sort of thing right it is it is certainly more costly and it is either i court had upheld the claims that is mr corps in fact your honor we know of no case that is akin to this case in so much as you have an islamic prisoner who is requesting nothing more than the existing diet already furnished by the prison to other inmates and has demonstrated specific medical and religious burdens demonstrably that are associated with prior consumption that in turn die we know of no such case and indeed the the locket case an arizona district court decision that was cited both by the court below and by the  see here is one in which a non jewish prisoner was requesting a kosher diet and on the merits in that context for plimer injunction that district court said indeed the prison would be required to accommodate that inmate based upon his demonstrated sincere religious belief that kosher meat would accommodate all kosher meals would accommodate his diet classes or anything you can say in the presence of the attorney general's office here to assuage their concern that a decision in this case is going to mean that they're going to have to provide eight hundred fifty additional kosher meals in the system your honor i think there are two things that i can point to one is the a t o c briefing on this point as far as what islamic authorities are understood to say generally as far as that instruction is understood by most muslims out there in the world and presumably in the prison as well but the second your honor to the extent this is not a stealth limiting request couches any accommodation for mr xi core i also want your honour's to focus a little bit on the equal protection and establishment clogging corey because mr wertz account is that it's a different matter if the religion requires consumption of a particular sort of diet or particular sort of meat and she says mistress of course not shown that we certainly take issue with that account but what we want to point out to the court is that here it is undisputed your honour's that jewish inmates know more require kosher meat then then mr should court does in fact the a t o c is kosher diet consists of two vegetarian meals out of three and then a third meal that adds kosher meat there's no claim that the vegetarian diet is in any way inconsistent with judaism by definition the a t o c is taking the position that it is indeed consistent with judaism so jews jewish inmates in the prison are receiving special needs special accommodations above and beyond what they are compelled to do and mr chicago or although he shares the faith such that kosher meat would be perfectly appropriate for him and although he also suffers demonstrably from the vegetarian diet in a way that we have no reason to think any jewish inmates who are receiving kosher meat does he is somehow being excluded from that accommodation