Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed
Take it away, Antonin Scalia ...
"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
Also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;
but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK
I'll keep dragging this out as many times as I have to...:doh: You're not understanding the conversation....You, and others brought up human sacrifice as though it was even relevant to this...And I asked you to name any main stream religions practiced today in the United States that call for human sacrifice. So far, you have danced all around it without answering the question. So, I'll just leave it there and take your dodging for what it is, and that is that you know your foolish venture into the absurd was just plain ignorant, and you shot off your mouth without thinking...
But, I will help you....
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
So, the overall final verdict is unfortunately for you, that NO you don't get to restrict peoples free exercise of their religion just because you have some special interest you think should gain consideration over that religions belief....At least not constitutionally.
Take it away, Antonin Scalia ...
"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
Also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;
but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK