Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

  1. #11
    User
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    06-30-19 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    136

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by 1751Texan View Post
    Is one is a baker, with a company that bakes cakes...there is no need for a law for that baker to bake cakes.

    the law is against the baker's choice to discriminate whom to bake a cake for.

    The law says, if your going to offer cakes baked for the public, then a baker can not discriminate against a protected group.

    the question before the Supreme Court soon is if ...sexual orientation can be added to the list of protected classes by the State.

    Sexual orientation, being gay, is not a federally listed group of those who are protected against discrimination.
    Maybe it ought to be.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    44,833

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    Does this mean that The Ark Encounter in Kentucky, that requires all employees to certify that they are true believers in the Christian god, is illegal under the terms of the US Constitution ?
    Do you not understand the difference between a private company and a government entity such as a public school?
    evidently you don't.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Last Seen
    12-03-18 @ 12:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    687

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    Does this mean that The Ark Encounter in Kentucky, that requires all employees to certify that they are true believers in the Christian god, is illegal under the terms of the US Constitution ?

    depends on if the Ark Encounter in Kentucky was part of Congress. Here is an example. Marijuana usages could have allusions to religion and the moralities of religion, per se. Congress, as part of Federal, holds marijuana as 'not legal' on the Federal level. But each State can choose to have their own 'legalities' towards marijuana. Congress did not pass these State laws because they still hold marijuana as 'illegal' but they do not infringe upon the rights of States to have marijuana 'legal' in their States.

    The same applies to same sex marriage. Congress did not pass a law that says same sex marriage needs to be honored in each State. They left that up to each individual State. However, for those States that do want to recognize same sex marriage rights and obligations, they are entitled to and free to. They might even be able to change 'marital' obligations if they wanted to.


    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances.


    Congress did not make any law respecting nor disrespecting of any establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging of freedom of speech, or abridging the freedom of the press, or abridging the right to peaceably assemble, or abridging the petition for a government redress of grievances.


    I guess, in a nut shell, each State is somewhat semi-autonomous but still under National Welfare as a whole. Semi autonomous as to its own residents but not autonomous to non residents. Jurisdictional and 'legal' laws pertaining to Courts and offenses, per se.
    Last edited by crazyme; 09-26-18 at 05:29 PM.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Last Seen
    12-03-18 @ 12:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    687

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    So maybe under the First amendment, each State has the right to establish their own internal set of Law(s) pertaining to Religion and the free exercise thereof...

    Which maybe Kentucky is already practicing...

    'Does this mean that The Ark Encounter in Kentucky, that requires all employees to certify that they are true believers in the Christian god, is illegal under the terms of the US Constitution ?'

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Missouri
    Last Seen
    05-24-19 @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,091

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by crazyme View Post
    So maybe under the First amendment, each State has the right to establish their own internal set of Law(s) pertaining to Religion and the free exercise thereof...

    Which maybe Kentucky is already practicing...

    'Does this mean that The Ark Encounter in Kentucky, that requires all employees to certify that they are true believers in the Christian god, is illegal under the terms of the US Constitution ?'
    Yeah . . . no. I absolutely don't want every state interpreting constitutional law independently. That's what the SCOTUS is for.

  6. #16
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    25,798

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    It is so very rare for AIPAC to fail in its effort to give Israel special treatment.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Last Seen
    12-03-18 @ 12:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    687

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    It is refreshing indeed to see a principled court stand tall for the First Amendment.

    The Kansas effort to appease AIPAC has failed, good news.

    Free Speech Victory:* Federal Court Strikes Down a Law that Punishes Supporters of Israel Boycott
    January 31, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a Kansas law designed to punish people who boycott Israel is an unconstitutional denial of free speech.


    Why is Israel not liked as to the point of 'boycotting', could you share with me, please?

  8. #18
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    25,798

    Re: Federal Court upholds First Amendment in BDS case in Kansas

    Quote Originally Posted by crazyme View Post
    January 31, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a Kansas law designed to punish people who boycott Israel is an unconstitutional denial of free speech.


    Why is Israel not liked as to the point of 'boycotting', could you share with me, please?
    Simply put, the Israeli government is a criminal one.

    Certainly not the only criminal government in the world, but it's right up there in the top 5.

    Their crimes against Gaza are well documented, and Syria too, though the US does most of the heavy lifting there on behalf of Israeli aggression.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •