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.
No, it wasn't. It was a case about receiving state law benefits. States are free to make such laws, and state citizens who violate them forfeit state benefits.
However, state laws CANNOT supercede US Constitutional Rights.
No, it wasn't. It was a case about receiving state law benefits. States are free to make such laws, and state citizens who violate them forfeit state benefits.
However, state laws CANNOT supercede US Constitutional Rights.
The STATE LAW said that anyone that is using drugs can not get unemployment benefits. The court said that religious belief does not trump that state law.
The STATE LAW in Colorado says that you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. The lower courts have said that religious belief does not trump state law.
In BOTH cases it is a STATE LAW. In BOTH cases the person is claiming that their religious belief trumps state law.
The STATE LAW said that anyone that is using drugs can not get unemployment benefits. The court said that religious belief does not trump that state law.
The STATE LAW in Colorado says that you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. The lower courts have said that religious belief does not trump state law.
In BOTH cases it is a STATE LAW. In BOTH cases the person is claiming that their religious belief trumps state law.
You might want to look again at a more recent case...
A general local/state law cannot usurp First Amendment Rights.
That was not a generally applicable law. That law directly targeted one religious practice. The Colorado law does not target any religious practice at all.
Quote:
Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872.
The ordinances' texts and operation demonstrate that they are not neutral, but have as their object the suppression of Santeria's central element, animal sacrifice. That this religious exercise has been targeted is evidenced by Resolution 87-66's statements of "concern" and "commitment," and by the use of the words "sacrifice" and "ritual" in Ordinances 87-40, 8752, and 87-71. Moreover, the latter ordinances' various prohibitions, definitions, and exemptions demonstrate that they were "gerrymandered" with care to proscribe religious killings of animals by Santeria church members but to exclude almost all other animal killings.
So basically "because the law says so" Laws compelling one to perform labor for another are wrong and akin to slavery.
Why do you feel you can make someone labor for you who doesnt want to? I know, I know because the law says you can
Your home is not a place of public accommodation. If you can't grasp that distinction, you are truly lost.
The idea of public accommodation is an abomination used by the state to control things it has no business controlling.
Since you, in your home utilize all manners of infrastructure and government services, why should you get a pass that a small business doesn't also receive.
Your argument comes down to, "the government has the right to impose its will because that is its right."
It sounds like a feudal lord saying, "I have that right because I am your sovereign."
That was not a generally applicable law. That law directly targeted one religious practice. The Colorado law does not target any religious practice at all.
There is no law that compels a baker to create a cake. Period.
They ruled in favor of religious belief BECAUSE the law was NOT neutral and generally applicable, it was a targeted law against one specific religious belief. The CO law is generally applicable and is not targeted against one specific religious practice.
This is a law that says nothing about cakes at all. The law states that no public accommodation can discriminate based on sexual orientation in the sale of any good or services that they offer.
The bakery is a public accommodation. The baker offered wedding cakes. The baker violated the law because he refused the service of a good that he offered based on the sexual orientation of the people buying that item.
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.
