For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

You claimed that judicial review was a power grab. So presumably you would like to eliminate it. Idiot.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

 

[paddymurphy]

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

You're as ignorant as you are ridiculous.

So much for following the intent of the founders.

 

[martybegan]

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

I think you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here incessantly whining about it. It's really quite pathetic.

You just can't grasp the concept of defending others even if you don't agree with them. It's actually kind of sad.

No, you don't understand freedom of religion at all.

You are the one that seems to only support it when it suits you.

 

[martybegan]

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

Doesn't matter. Businesses are not allowed to openly discriminate against the public unless they are classified as a religious institution, and bakeries are not religious institutions in any sense of the word. If you can't operate your business in accordance with your state laws, then don't open a business. Simple and does not violate any of your rights.

In fact, you, as a business owner, discriminating against certain sectors of the public does in fact violate THEIR rights regardless of your personal beliefs. You see how that works?

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

So the Mormon's religious belief in polygamy should never have been infringed upon,

nor should the Islamic belief in polygamy?

Eh?

I never said that.

I SAID that just because YOU think the 1st Amendment has already been violated, it doesn't justify violating it again!

I'm asking you to state your position on the religious belief in polygamy as a protected right under the 1st Amendment. Should it be protected as a legal religious practice?

Should it be or shouldn't it be? If not why not?

 

[martybegan]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

Already have case law that addresses that. Even comes out of Oregon. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw States that where there is a law of general application, a person seeking exemption from that law cannot simply state that they object to the law on religious grounds. From the opinion, "The protection that the First Amendment provides to "`legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion,'" see Hobbie, 480 U.S., at 142 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)) (emphasis added), does not extend to conduct that a State has validly proscribed. [485 U.S. 660, 672] - See more at: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw I highlighted to important part of this passage. The state can validly proscribe discrimination against gay people and claim that such laws violate the free exercise of religion fail. Before you cite to the RFRA, that only applies to federal legislation. A state would have to pass its own RFRA to restore the previous test for religious freedom, and Oregon has not.

Blah, blah blah, lawyers being oppressive, blah blah blah.

 

[paddymurphy]

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Read, studied and use both in my profession. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Each branch has the authority to refuse to enact a law that is not constitutional. The legislature can refuse to pass a law that it considers not constitutional. The President can veto one he considers not constitutional. Neither of these are reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court can invalidate a law that it finds unconstitutional. That is the balance of powers. They each have, in essence, a veto over laws. The final authority rests with the people. If they do not like a determination that a law is not constitutional, they can amend the constitution and the Supreme Court is bound by that.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

And conservatives argue by claiming that the Supreme Court has been getting it wrong since 1803.

So you agree with:

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Or how about Bush v. Gore, that gets you libs's panties in such a bunch?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

Doesn't matter. Businesses are not allowed to openly discriminate against the public unless they are classified as a religious institution, and bakeries are not religious institutions in any sense of the word. If you can't operate your business in accordance with your state laws, then don't open a business. Simple and does not violate any of your rights.

In fact, you, as a business owner, discriminating against certain sectors of the public does in fact violate THEIR rights regardless of your personal beliefs. You see how that works?

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

Lol, so if the bakers are offended or insulted or hurt emotionally because the laws regarding business requires them to refrain from discriminating against homosexuals,

they shouldn't mistake that for their rights being violated?

lol

 

[martybegan]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

That opinion, dipshit, was by the conservative justices. The liberals dissented and wanted greater protection for religious practices. And if you do not like the idea of a Supreme Court, move to some nation where there is no constitution or amend ours to eliminate one of the branches.

How about we get a court that actually follows the constitution, and not the personal views of the court, or what the court THINKS the country should do?

And ZOMG I DISAGREE WITH CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES, the horror, the horror.

Your side has the propensity for groupthink, not mine.

 

[paddymurphy]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

Already have case law that addresses that. Even comes out of Oregon. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw States that where there is a law of general application, a person seeking exemption from that law cannot simply state that they object to the law on religious grounds. From the opinion, "The protection that the First Amendment provides to "`legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion,'" see Hobbie, 480 U.S., at 142 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)) (emphasis added), does not extend to conduct that a State has validly proscribed. [485 U.S. 660, 672] - See more at: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw I highlighted to important part of this passage. The state can validly proscribe discrimination against gay people and claim that such laws violate the free exercise of religion fail. Before you cite to the RFRA, that only applies to federal legislation. A state would have to pass its own RFRA to restore the previous test for religious freedom, and Oregon has not.

Blah, blah blah, lawyers being oppressive, blah blah blah.

Yeah, I guess to a simple minded asshole like you the supreme law of the land does come across as blah, blah, blah.

 

[martybegan]

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

 

[paddymurphy]

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

That opinion, dipshit, was by the conservative justices. The liberals dissented and wanted greater protection for religious practices. And if you do not like the idea of a Supreme Court, move to some nation where there is no constitution or amend ours to eliminate one of the branches.

How about we get a court that actually follows the constitution, and not the personal views of the court, or what the court THINKS the country should do?

And ZOMG I DISAGREE WITH CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES, the horror, the horror.

Your side has the propensity for groupthink, not mine.

This Court has followed the constitution.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Read, studied and use both in my profession. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Each branch has the authority to refuse to enact a law that is not constitutional. The legislature can refuse to pass a law that it considers not constitutional. The President can veto one he considers not constitutional. Neither of these are reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court can invalidate a law that it finds unconstitutional. That is the balance of powers. They each have, in essence, a veto over laws. The final authority rests with the people. If they do not like a determination that a law is not constitutional, they can amend the constitution and the Supreme Court is bound by that.

The court cannot PASS law, which is what it has done with rulings like Roe v. Wade and this one on gay marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

And conservatives argue by claiming that the Supreme Court has been getting it wrong since 1803.

So you agree with:

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Or how about Bush v. Gore, that gets you libs's panties in such a bunch?

Aren't those decisions gone?

I thought you said the Supreme Court was the last word?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

That opinion, dipshit, was by the conservative justices. The liberals dissented and wanted greater protection for religious practices. And if you do not like the idea of a Supreme Court, move to some nation where there is no constitution or amend ours to eliminate one of the branches.

How about we get a court that actually follows the constitution, and not the personal views of the court, or what the court THINKS the country should do?

And ZOMG I DISAGREE WITH CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES, the horror, the horror.

Your side has the propensity for groupthink, not mine.

This Court has followed the constitution.

Like with these rulings?

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[martybegan]

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

 

[paddymurphy]

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

I cited the fucking case for you. What more does it take for you to understand that you are wrong? Oh, I know, you are smarter than the several dozen SC Justices who have ruled on these religious freedom cases over the last 150 years. They were all idiots and you are omniscient.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Read, studied and use both in my profession. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. Each branch has the authority to refuse to enact a law that is not constitutional. The legislature can refuse to pass a law that it considers not constitutional. The President can veto one he considers not constitutional. Neither of these are reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court can invalidate a law that it finds unconstitutional. That is the balance of powers. They each have, in essence, a veto over laws. The final authority rests with the people. If they do not like a determination that a law is not constitutional, they can amend the constitution and the Supreme Court is bound by that.

The court cannot PASS law, which is what it has done with rulings like Roe v. Wade and this one on gay marriage.

Actually the Court makes case law. That's why it's called law.

What 'law' (by your imaginings) was passed in Roe?