is intended to be the center of religious learning and teaching, is arguably religious exercise, see WDS II, 504 F.3d at 348 (noting that the correct inquiry to determine whether an educational facility is covered as “religious exercise” by RLUIPA is whether it “would be used at least in part for religious education and practice”); see also Fifth Ave., 293 F.3d at 574-75 (finding provision of a location for homeless to sleep to be religious exercise); Candlehouse, Inc. v. Town of Vestal, No. 11-CV-93, 2013 WL 1867114, at *18 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2013) (noting that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the residential component of a religious ministry for substance abuse to be religious exercise); Bikur Cholim, Inc. v. Vill of Suffern, 664 F.Supp.2d 267, 276 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>). Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the
holding that the tdcjs volunteer requirement did not impose a substantial lourden on jewish inmates who wanted to meet on more sabbath and jewish holy days than their volunteer could attend holding that while trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written orders they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review holding that operation of a facility to enable observant individuals to visit the sick on the sabbath and holidays as well as the other individual plaintiffs sic obligations to observe the sabbath while being able to visit their family members at a nearby hospital implicates their religious exercise holding that because plaintiffs would be able to file their case in colombia  plaintiffs concerns as to their safety are more appropriately considered in the private interest factors analysis holding that the defendants had significant privacy interest in being able to proceed forward with their lives by being able to control information concerning criminal charges never filed against them