Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my interpretation of the first amendment was the standard understanding of it for most of this country's history.
Your interpretation (religion part) is so lose that itcan very well be applied to the USSR
No it was not. At the very least, Reynolds v United States (1878--136 years ago, 102 years after the US declared independence, 89 years after the Constitution was ratified) set the precedent that Federal Law that was not in line with a particular sect's views was not a violation of the 1st Amendment and the Incorporation cases of the 1920s firmly established the Amendments were the law of the land.
Secondly, the 14th Amendment has been the Amendment the courts have used in overturning laws prohibiting gay marriage. The broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment by the courts undergirds both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state laws prohibiting discrimination against gay people. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that discrimination against gays in employment was a form of sex discrimination and against the law per Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Employment Division v Smith (1990) held that although states could, if they wished accommodate religious practices that were otherwise illegal could do so but could not be compelled to do so.
And incidentally, discrimination against women and black people was legal throughout much of the country's history too, but that's not a valid argument in favor of discriminating against women and black people.
Wisconsin v. Yoder is a decent example of such a case but it's hard to find because there is almost no jurisprudence on the free exercise clause up until the J witness cases in the late 30s till 40s and even then very sparingly until relatively recently
more cases
Sherbert v. Verner
remember that until the 14 amendment the bill of rights was not applied to states.
the only way I could rationally accept, trying forcing ministers in this Idaho town to violate their religion as constitutional, would be to say that the bill of rights only applies to the states not localities, and somehow I don't think anyone would ever want to go down that road.
Man or man, you are thick skulled. The business in question was not running as a church and they were never forced to ever marry any same sex couple, nor were they threatened with a law suit. They started the suit against the town as a pre emptive strike. They were a business, not a church so they had to follow the law. They violated their "religion" when they wed divorced couples or those of different faiths, but they did not gripe about that. They cherry picked what they wanted to gripe about. It is all a farce and you fell for it hook line and sinker.
I'm a jew in my house, in synagogue, in the street, in work etc.
you are against the first amendment
Open a business and you are subject to the law, that is the bottom line. You do not have the option of opting out of the law because you are a practicing Jew.
I have no doubt you would be lighting the fire at the auto da fe.
What in hell is an auto da fe , the 1st does not go against your judaism. Sorry, but you appear to be the one lighting fires. I used to think that Jews were compassionate, kind and worthy people and for the most part do. But you are not a good jew, you are evil, you are unkind and lack any sort of compassion. You do not have god in you, you have the devil feeding your hatred.
No it was not. At the very least, Reynolds v United States (1878--136 years ago, 102 years after the US declared independence, 89 years after the Constitution was ratified) set the precedent that Federal Law that was not in line with a particular sect's views was not a violation of the 1st Amendment and the Incorporation cases of the 1920s firmly established the Amendments were the law of the land.
Reynolds v United States read the decision and can you honestly tell me they would side with you on this one which do you think
Quote:
In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests.
Furthermore Mormons didn't require polygamy it allowed it and encouraged it
helping a same sex "marriage" is just as forbidden as murder got it
Quote:
Sorry, but you appear to be the one lighting fires. I used to think that Jews were compassionate, kind and worthy people and for the most part do.
I used to think gay meant happy
Quote:
But you are not a good jew, you are evil, you are unkind and lack any sort of compassion. You do not have god in you, you have the devil feeding your hatred.
thank you this is the kindest thing you could have said if you would have complemented me I would be worried that I was doing something evil
Isiah 5-20
helping a same sex "marriage" is just as forbidden as murder got it
I used to think gay meant happy
thank you this is the kindest thing you could have said if you would have complemented me I would be worried that I was doing something evil
Isiah 5-20
Well, I did not look it up. I challenged you to explain yourself. You made the statement, back it up. Baloney, same sex marriage and murder are nothing similar and you equating them shows your disdain for gays. What is your problem with gay people? Did one do something unforgivable to you, or do you just hate them because of your beliefs. I was not being kind, you are evil, you are unkind, you are anti social.
Reynolds v United States read the decision and can you honestly tell me they would side with you on this one which do you think
Furthermore Mormons didn't require polygamy it allowed it and encouraged it
From the court's decision:
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law. And the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. The only defence of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion: it was still belief, and belief only.
Well, I did not look it up. I challenged you to explain yourself. You made the statement, back it up. Baloney, same sex marriage and murder are nothing similar and you equating them shows your disdain for gays. What is your problem with gay people? Did one do something unforgivable to you, or do you just hate them because of your beliefs. I was not being kind, you are evil, you are unkind, you are anti social.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
