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.
A quote from none other than Antonin Scalia is highly relevant to this case:
Quote:
If the "compelling interest" test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if "compelling interest" really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because "we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference," Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. at 606, and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from [p889] compulsory military service, see, e.g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), to the payment of taxes, see, e.g., United States v. Lee, supra; to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, see, e.g., Funkhouser v. State, 763 P.2d 695 (Okla.Crim.App.1988), compulsory vaccination laws, see, e.g., Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816 (1964), drug laws, see, e.g., Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 279 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989), and traffic laws, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, see Susan and Tony Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), child labor laws, see Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), animal cruelty laws, see, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F.Supp. 1467 (S.D.Fla.1989), cf. State v. Massey, 229 N.C. 734, 51 S.E.2d 179, appeal dism'd, 336 U.S. 942 (1949), environmental protection laws, see United States v. Little, 638 F.Supp. 337 (Mont.1986), and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races, see, e.g., Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603-604 (1983). The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this. [n5] [p890]
Of course, Scalia conveniently ignores his own jurisprudence when the desired exception is a Christian one with which he happens to agree (the case cited above revolves around the wishes of Native Americans to use peyote in a religious rite contrary to federal law - Scalia cares not a white for indigenous beliefs).
However, the point holds.
No one should get a free pass from a law with an express secular purpose on the ridiculous pretext that their religious belief specially exempts them from following such laws.
Why do "christians" always think that they should have special privileges to ignore the laws?
They don't "think" they have special privileges to ignore the law, they have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to freely practice their religion, and that protected right PROHIBITS any laws that would infringe on those protected rights.
In turn, THE SAME RIGHTS are afforded to non-religious people under the 1ST Amendment that prohibits any legislation that establishes a religion.
But you know...haters (of the faithful) gonna hate
You really are dense. Go Google Conscientious Objectors. Go Google Amish not subject to SSI laws.
The 1st Amendment protects a person's religious freedoms over laws that infringe those freedoms. Which the WA State law does.
Tell that to the Native Americans that can not use peyote in their religious practices. Currently only one N.A. church is allowed to follow their religion in that manner. Or Rastafarians who can still be jailed for using marijuana. Some states ban ritualistic animal sacrifice. Child marriage is illegal in every state, as is polygamy both are religious beliefs. There are thousands of other religious practices that are not allowed by law.
Are you concerned with their religious rights too?
With the exception of "essential services", businesses should be allowed to discriminate if they choose.
Is it right? No, but it is their business and they shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to do business, and I see no valid argument why they should.
I wouldn't do business with businesses that discriminate, and that is my choice as well.
Do you believe that ALL anti discrimination laws should be removed? Race, religion, sex, age, physical disability, etc?
The special privilege sought by homosexuals is the redefinition of marriage solely based on their sexual preference. They have the same rights as every other American citizen to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they want an exemption from that law based solely on their sexual desires.
If they had walked into the store and ordered a bunch of bouquets of flowers, that transaction would have taken place (as such sales between the florist and these customers had been for nearly a decade), but they sought out her creative and artistic energies to create arrangements specifically intended for use in a ceremony celebrating homosexuality. The florist understands homosexuality to be an abomination and a sin and therefore could not participate in the celebration of homosexuality by expending her creative and artistic talents in creating floral arrangements.
No we are seeking the removal of the sex restriction. Not one marriage law even mentions sexual preferance or sexual orientation.
There are a lot of sins in the bible. Why is this the only one that ever seems to be brought up in regards to sales and not the virgin at marriage, divorce, religion ones?
You really are dense. Go Google Conscientious Objectors. Go Google Amish not subject to SSI laws.
The 1st Amendment protects a person's religious freedoms over laws that infringe those freedoms. Which the WA State law does.
I've already read into all of these things yesterday when we talked about it.
The difference here is that these exemptions have nothing to do with business law as it relates to public services / transactions (I don't care that her business is her own... she still has to follow the law).
Also, I can't say I agree that anyone should get a religious exemption for anything that is otherwise applicable to everyone else. But you are bringing up a different discussion.
They don't "think" they have special privileges to ignore the law, they have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to freely practice their religion, and that protected right PROHIBITS any laws that would infringe on those protected rights.
In turn, THE SAME RIGHTS are afforded to non-religious people under the 1ST Amendment that prohibits any legislation that establishes a religion.
But you know...haters (of the faithful) gonna hate
Opening and operating a business is not a religious practice. Can't follow the laws because of your religious beliefs? Don't open a business.
Of course, Scalia conveniently ignores his own jurisprudence when the desired exception is a Christian one with which he happens to agree (the case cited above revolves around the wishes of Native Americans to use peyote in a religious rite contrary to federal law - Scalia cares not a white for indigenous beliefs).
However, the point holds.
No one should get a free pass from a law with an express secular purpose on the ridiculous pretext that their religious belief specially exempts them from following such laws.
The fact pattern of that case is irrelevant to the facts in this case. Here, the issue is whether a religious person must be forced to violate their religious beliefs by exerting their creative and artistic labor in support of a specific activity deemed a sin by every recognized major world religion.
The case you cite involved an individual claiming his right to smoke peyote at work. There was no demand on him to use his creativity and artistic labor in support of a defined sin that violated his religious beliefs and moral conscience.
Check out Native American Church of NY v. US (1979) or People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716.
Scalia's decision was correct in that case, but it is irrelevant to the facts in this case.
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.
