that the mandate favors some religions over others by ere ating an official category of “religious employer” that includes only “churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship, and religious orders.” 78 Fed.Reg. at 8,461. Plaintiffs argue that such definition favors religious groups, that fit into the traditional categories of “houses of worship” while disadvantaging other religious organizations, like Catholic Charities, that express their faith through the provision of charitable and social services. Plaintiffs’ argument fails because the regulation does not refer to any particular denomination, nor is there any indication that it was designed to favor any particular religion. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723-24, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 2123, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (<HOLDING>). As several courts have observed, the
holding that one who acquires legal title with notice of a prior equitable interest in the property is not a bona fide purchaser holding that the rights of a bona fide purchaser outweighed those of an under secured second mortgage holder holding that the religious land use and institutionalized persons act does not run afoul of the establishment clause because it does not differentiate among bona fide faiths and confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect and singles out no bona fide faith for disadvantageous treatment holding bona fide error defense barred claim for fdpca violation which arose from mistake of law holding that a bona fide purchaser may be considered in privity with its predecessor