it may also support a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA”). RLUIPA provides that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person- — -(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering efile himself by doing something that is completely forbidden by his religion is different from (and more serious than) curtailing various ways of expressing beliefs for which alternatives are available.”); LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th
holding that corrections officers mockpreaching and espousal of religious views did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of religion holding that when an inmates religious views requiring a vegetarian diet are sincerely held prison policy may violate his free exercise rights even though vegetarianism is only a recommended not a required element of plaintiffs religion seventhday adventism holding that docs may place reasonable limitations on an inmates right to the free exercise of religion including a requirement that the inmate register his religious affiliation holding a muslim prisoners free exercise claim failed because even though the prison did not provide him with halal meat he could comply with his religious requirements by simply eating a vegetarian meal and therefore the disputed policy did not force the prisoner to violate his religion recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion