Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 151
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If the baker didn't consider it a message, then this wouldn't be an issue. Really, you are the one claiming the baker has no message when refusing to bake the cake.
    No, I'm not claiming that. Here is what I said:

    "You will need to support that the cake is the message. Maybe that's the way you personally see it but I'm unaware of any legal principle that would agree with that nor do I personally agree."

    I said that you will need to support your argument because I don't agree with it (if I agreed with it, I wouldn't ask you to support it). I didn't claim that the opposing position is true and just to save us the potential of arguing whether I did or did not claim that, I am currently not claiming that (so even if I did in the past, it's not a current claim of mine so I have no need to support it).

    So support or retract that the cake is a message.

    And I should point out that just thinking that what one is doing is "sending a message" does not make it so. If it were otherwise, then one could refuse to do anything by saying that doing so would be sending a message that they don't want to send. A kid could refuse to clean his room by saying that cleaning his room would be "sending a message" that he's in favor of tidiness and therefore it's a violation of his free speech rights to be punished for not cleaning his room. So if one is to argue that doing X would be sending a message, they are going to have to meet a higher bar than saying that they think it's sending a message. It would have to be agreed by a common observer that a message would be sent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What is the baker doing if not sending a message?
    Selling a cake.
    Last edited by mican333; May 26th, 2017 at 08:33 AM.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I'm not claiming that. Here is what I said:

    "You will need to support that the cake is the message. Maybe that's the way you personally see it but I'm unaware of any legal principle that would agree with that nor do I personally agree."

    I said that you will need to support your argument because I don't agree with it (if I agreed with it, I wouldn't ask you to support it). I didn't claim that the opposing position is true and just to save us the potential of arguing whether I did or did not claim that, I am currently not claiming that (so even if I did in the past, it's not a current claim of mine so I have no need to support it).

    So support or retract that the cake is a message.

    And I should point out that just thinking that what one is doing is "sending a message" does not make it so. If it were otherwise, then one could refuse to do anything by saying that doing so would be sending a message that they don't want to send. A kid could refuse to clean his room by saying that cleaning his room would be "sending a message" that he's in favor of tidiness and therefore it's a violation of his free speech rights to be punished for not cleaning his room. So if one is to argue that doing X would be sending a message, they are going to have to meet a higher bar than saying that they think it's sending a message. It would have to be agreed by a common observer that a message would be sent.




    Selling a cake.
    Except one problem with your theory. He didn't sell the cake.

    ---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The Valeo case had nothing to do with anti-discrimination vs. freedom to exercise religion, so it is completely irrelevant. Further, how a business operates according to anti-discrimination laws and how political contributions and spending are done according to campaign finance laws are two completely different things altogether, with two completely different sets of laws governing them.
    Follow the bouncing ball here. You claimed spending money was not a form of speech. I offered the Valeo case to directly refute this. Valeo didn't address discrimination nor did I make such a claim. So, the question now is, do you concede that spending money is a form of free speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, you do - I'm merely highlighting the issues that would be caused by your attitude towards defending discriminatory views being expressed as business decisions. How do you think such a case would go over if such a religious exemption were instituted? Do you think the Muslim's right to make discriminatory business decisions would be protected just as fervently as the Christians'?
    This is little more than a slippery slope argument. I cannot predict how far such freedom would be taken nor how the courts would respond. All I can do is express that I support the freedom of speech and do not exclude people just because they own a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I already refuted this: by conducting one's business in accordance with the anti-discrimination laws, the business is doing just that. It is extrapolation to conclude that conducting a business in accordance with the anti-discrimination laws is the same as supporting any religious views. They're not expressing any views, they're just conducting their business the way the law requires them to. However, it's not a stretch to imagine that the business operator could be criticized by their religious peers, and that their fear of criticism is what leads them to extrapolate their business decisions into expression of religious views.
    Obviously, you and Mican are completely wrong here. The baker, in the example provided by Mican, was very clearly making a statement by expressing his first amendment rights to support his religious views. By disallowing his refusal of service, you have absolutely abridged his freedom of expression and have absolutely inhibited his right to express himself religiously. You can claim that you are doing this because you believe that anti-discrimination is more important than free speech, but you have clearly made a choice. The problem here is that the constitution does not have any sort of clause which demands that people refuse to discriminate against one another. This is an entirely invented right which encroaches on actual rights established in the Constitution. However, you make no apology for this. Rather, you insist that the ends must justify the means and your preferred ends are always justified. In this case, certain groups of people must not be discriminated against. However, we've already established that this anti-discrimination philosophy only goes so far and is immediately abandoned when the discriminated person isn't from an approved upon group. Your ends becomes nothing more than a means towards discrimination of someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And you don't see how supporting exceptions which favour religion is unconstitutional according to the Anti-Establishment clause? Or are you willing to allow the violation of the very first clause of the very first amendment as well as anti-discrimination laws for the sole reason that you believe it would restore support for the 3rd clause for a select group of people?
    Here is where I'd like you to follow my argument more closely. In a perfect world, I wouldn't want religious exceptions to laws. In principle, I agree that religious exceptions could be unconstitutional. However, we do not live in a perfect world and bad bills get created. So, we have a problem. We have laws which violate religious freedom (i.e. 1st amendment rights). So, where an exception makes a bad law, less bad, then I support the exception. Grudgingly. But, some freedom is better than no freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Um, making discriminatory business decisions which violate anti-discrimination laws? I thought that was clear.
    So, you are claiming that the baker merely wanted to violate the law? He acted solely, without any purpose or plan, to simply violate a law. An anti-discrimination law. As an act of pure naivete. Just woke up and decided, hey, there's a gay bloke and I'm going to refuse to bake him a cake and go to jail. He probably hoped, in the back of his head, that no one would read anything into it because he clearly wasn't intending to send a message or act on his religious views. I mean, your claim is ridiculous on its face. It does not even make sense.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Except one problem with your theory. He didn't sell the cake.
    That's not a problem at all.

    As there is no relevant difference between choosing to send a message and choosing to not send a message, there is likewise no relevant difference between selling a cake and refusing to sell a cake.

    But either way, you have not supported that a cake is a message.
    Last edited by mican333; May 27th, 2017 at 08:54 AM.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Follow the bouncing ball here. You claimed spending money was not a form of speech. I offered the Valeo case to directly refute this. Valeo didn't address discrimination nor did I make such a claim. So, the question now is, do you concede that spending money is a form of free speech?
    First, the Valeo ruling was that restrictions on spending for political communication violated the First Amendment's 3rd clause. Please support or retract that the ruling proves that spending money in and of itself is a form of speech.
    Second, please indicate where I claimed that spending money was not a form of speech, because we're talking about the business decisions made by the business, not spending money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is little more than a slippery slope argument. I cannot predict how far such freedom would be taken nor how the courts would respond. All I can do is express that I support the freedom of speech and do not exclude people just because they own a business.
    No, it would be a slippery slope if I claimed that the Muslim example was inevitable as a result of implementing religious exemptions. I didn't claim this, so it's not a slippery slope. Your attempts to avoid responding to the implications of the example speak volumes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The baker, in the example provided by Mican, was very clearly making a statement by expressing his first amendment rights to support his religious views.
    Huh? People don't "make statements by expressing their first amendment rights to support their religious views". Your incoherent sentence is indicative of the irrational lengths to which you will go to extrapolate any meaning from any conduct in order to support your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here is where I'd like you to follow my argument more closely. In a perfect world, I wouldn't want religious exceptions to laws. In principle, I agree that religious exceptions could be unconstitutional. However, we do not live in a perfect world and bad bills get created. So, we have a problem. We have laws which violate religious freedom (i.e. 1st amendment rights). So, where an exception makes a bad law, less bad, then I support the exception. Grudgingly. But, some freedom is better than no freedom.
    By "religious freedom", are you referring to the 2nd or the 3rd clause of the 1st amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you are claiming that the baker merely wanted to violate the law? He acted solely, without any purpose or plan, to simply violate a law. An anti-discrimination law. As an act of pure naivete. Just woke up and decided, hey, there's a gay bloke and I'm going to refuse to bake him a cake and go to jail. He probably hoped, in the back of his head, that no one would read anything into it because he clearly wasn't intending to send a message or act on his religious views. I mean, your claim is ridiculous on its face. It does not even make sense.
    Nice straw man. I didn't say he is "making discriminatory business decisions in order to violate anti-discrimination laws".

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  6. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's not a problem at all.

    As there is no relevant difference between choosing to send a message and choosing to not send a message, there is likewise no relevant difference between selling a cake and refusing to sell a cake.

    But either way, you have not supported that a cake is a message.
    I believe I have. I asked, if not a message, then what? You responded that he's selling a cake. Except, he didn't sell a cake. He refused to sell a cake. However you interpret it, a message was sent.

    ---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    First, the Valeo ruling was that restrictions on spending for political communication violated the First Amendment's 3rd clause. Please support or retract that the ruling proves that spending money in and of itself is a form of speech.
    Second, please indicate where I claimed that spending money was not a form of speech, because we're talking about the business decisions made by the business, not spending money.
    You can keep trying to make it about the business operators expressing their 1st amendment rights to free speech, but that's not what this is about, for a number of reasons, but the bottom line is: business decisions are not speech.

    So, let's look at your quote above. You claimed that business decisions are not speech. However, isn't spending money a business decision? Do I buy the cake? Do I sell the cake? You can claim that business decisions aren't speech, but this is unsupported on your part. It is just your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, it would be a slippery slope if I claimed that the Muslim example was inevitable as a result of implementing religious exemptions. I didn't claim this, so it's not a slippery slope. Your attempts to avoid responding to the implications of the example speak volumes.
    No, here is the definition:
    "an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous."
    This is exactly what you are arguing. If we give the baker (or any businessman) the right to refuse service based on his moral views, then something unacceptable may result. I am simply refusing to be baited into this line of thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Huh? People don't "make statements by expressing their first amendment rights to support their religious views". Your incoherent sentence is indicative of the irrational lengths to which you will go to extrapolate any meaning from any conduct in order to support your argument.
    This sentence makes perfect sense to me. Sorry you are unable to comprehend it. Let me try to express it for you in a different way. The baker has a religious view and he expressed his religious view by utilizing his 1st amendment rights. In this case, by not selling a cake.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    By "religious freedom", are you referring to the 2nd or the 3rd clause of the 1st amendment?
    Explain how this is relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Nice straw man. I didn't say he is "making discriminatory business decisions in order to violate anti-discrimination laws".
    I am asking you to explain, then, the basis of his discriminatory actions. If not to express his moral/religious views, then why?

    Let me replay the relevant statements which led to this:
    Me: What is the baker doing if not sending a message?
    You:
    Um, making discriminatory business decisions which violate anti-discrimination laws? I thought that was clear.

    You (and Mican) are both casting this baker as making some sort of irrational "business" decision based on a black hole. He is discriminating. So what? That's his 1st amendment right as it is consistent with his religious beliefs. So, we go full circle. Who has providence over the baker's skill and labor? What right is being violated by being refused a cake? What right is being violated by being forced to bake and decorate a cake? How do we reconcile these? You and Mican would prefer we force the baker to ignore his values and offer that he is subserviant to anyone who enters his shop. I'd argue that the baker is the sole decider of how and when he utilizes his craft, while holding no power over those who seek his service. In other words refusal to provide someone with a service is, in no way, equivalent to forcing someone to work.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, let's look at your quote above. You claimed that business decisions are not speech. However, isn't spending money a business decision? Do I buy the cake? Do I sell the cake? You can claim that business decisions aren't speech, but this is unsupported on your part. It is just your opinion.
    It's also the opinion of the court. In the "Sweet Cakes" case, the court decided that the Kleins cannot even communicate publicly that their bakery will not sell gay wedding cakes. They of course argued that this decision was a "gag order" violating their rights to freedom of religion and speech. However, yet again, such a communication was considered a business decision governed by anti-discrimination laws and not speech.

    No, here is the definition: "an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous."
    You've just googled "slippery slope", and that's not the definition of the slippery slope fallacy, which is making an unsupported argument that some absurd or horrible result B is inevitable if A were to happen. There's nothing absurd about the implication that Muslims would request the same right to discriminate (B) on the basis of religious exemption as would be granted to other religions (A). After all, Trump's signing had a wealth of religious leaders present (image). Luckily, there's nothing to indicate that A will ever happen.

    This is exactly what you are arguing. If we give the baker (or any businessman) the right to refuse service based on his moral views, then something unacceptable may result. I am simply refusing to be baited into this line of thinking.
    Then you agree that it would be unacceptable? Or are you simply denying that it could happen if any religious exemption were enacted?

    This sentence makes perfect sense to me. Sorry you are unable to comprehend it. Let me try to express it for you in a different way. The baker has a religious view and he expressed his religious view by utilizing his 1st amendment rights. In this case, by not selling a cake.
    There is nothing analogous between the two versions of your sentence:
    1. make a statement by expressing one's first amendment rights to support one's religious views
    2. express one's religious views by utilizing one's 1st amendment rights
    Does one express one's 1st amendment rights or utilize them?
    Does one support one's religious views or express them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Explain how this is relevant.
    Just to be on the safe side in terms of clarity of language, as above. Are you talking about protecting people's freedom to practice their religion, or protecting their freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am asking you to explain, then, the basis of his discriminatory actions. If not to express his moral/religious views, then why?
    It doesn't matter. What matters is that his conduct violates anti-discrimination laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Who has providence over the baker's skill and labor?
    The laws which govern how the business operator must conduct their business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What right is being violated by being refused a cake?
    The rights which are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What right is being violated by being forced to bake and decorate a cake?
    This is a misrepresentation of what's happening. The business isn't being forced to do anything, it's simply conducting itself according to the laws which govern its conduct. As I already explained, and the court agrees, selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple does not necessarily lead an observer to conclude that the bakery supports its customer’s conduct.

  8. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I believe I have. I asked, if not a message, then what? You responded that he's selling a cake. Except, he didn't sell a cake. He refused to sell a cake.
    Right. You said that in your last post and I responded to it in my prior post. AGAIN:

    As there is no relevant difference between choosing to send a message and choosing to not send a message, there is likewise no relevant difference between selling a cake and refusing to sell a cake.

    Or I suppose I can just change my answer to "Refusing to sell a cake" as the thing that was being done instead of sending a message.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However you interpret it, a message was sent.
    Because you say so? Sorry. You will need to actually support this assertion.
    Last edited by mican333; May 30th, 2017 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right. You said that in your last post and I responded to it in my prior post. AGAIN:

    As there is no relevant difference between choosing to send a message and choosing to not send a message, there is likewise no relevant difference between selling a cake and refusing to sell a cake.

    Or I suppose I can just change my answer to "Refusing to sell a cake" as the thing that was being done instead of sending a message.




    Because you say so? Sorry. You will need to actually support this assertion.
    The logic is pretty clear. We could claim not selling the cake and selling the cake are equivalent, except they are not. The default position would be to sell the cake from which it would be impossible to reasonable assume the baker's position. However, by not selling the cake, we absolutely know the baker's position, which means, by definition, he has sent a message. To remove all doubt, the baker has told us his message by clearly stating why he didn't sell the cake.

    ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It's also the opinion of the court. In the "Sweet Cakes" case, the court decided that the Kleins cannot even communicate publicly that their bakery will not sell gay wedding cakes. They of course argued that this decision was a "gag order" violating their rights to freedom of religion and speech. However, yet again, such a communication was considered a business decision governed by anti-discrimination laws and not speech.

    You've just googled "slippery slope", and that's not the definition of the slippery slope fallacy, which is making an unsupported argument that some absurd or horrible result B is inevitable if A were to happen. There's nothing absurd about the implication that Muslims would request the same right to discriminate (B) on the basis of religious exemption as would be granted to other religions (A). After all, Trump's signing had a wealth of religious leaders present (image). Luckily, there's nothing to indicate that A will ever happen.

    Then you agree that it would be unacceptable? Or are you simply denying that it could happen if any religious exemption were enacted?

    There is nothing analogous between the two versions of your sentence:
    1. make a statement by expressing one's first amendment rights to support one's religious views
    2. express one's religious views by utilizing one's 1st amendment rights
    Does one express one's 1st amendment rights or utilize them?
    Does one support one's religious views or express them?

    Just to be on the safe side in terms of clarity of language, as above. Are you talking about protecting people's freedom to practice their religion, or protecting their freedom of speech?

    It doesn't matter. What matters is that his conduct violates anti-discrimination laws.

    The laws which govern how the business operator must conduct their business.

    The rights which are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

    This is a misrepresentation of what's happening. The business isn't being forced to do anything, it's simply conducting itself according to the laws which govern its conduct. As I already explained, and the court agrees, selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple does not necessarily lead an observer to conclude that the bakery supports its customer’s conduct.
    1. The Sweet Cakes case was decided in Oregon, but has not reached the Supreme Court level. Obviously, I feel the state court erred and my arguments support this premise. However, you have misinterpreted the case you are citing. The issue was not that the court believed that a business couldn't invoke 1st amendment rights. The jurors did not believe the premise that the bakers were artists. They also relied on a slippery slope argument, asking, much like you have, what would happen if business A refused service to Muslims or bi-racial couples, et al. The court didn't accept the defendant's rebuttal that such a distinction has already been covered by prior Supreme Court precedent.

    2. Yes, I just googled slippery slope. The basic premise stands. You have taken an action and extrapolated it into some behavior which you believe is untenable. As the Sweet Cake lawyers argued and which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, distinctions can be made which would prevent the sort of slipper slope you are proposing.

    3. You have now resorted to parsing words and grammar which I find a bit disingenuous. If you cannot reconcile what I mean when I say expressing one's first amendment rights versus utilizing those rights, then I think you are merely playing word games. For the purpose of this debate, I am using them interchangeably. When I demonstrate in the streets am I expressing or utilizing my first amendment rights? Who cares?

    4. Just to be on the safe side? Is there a practical difference between protecting one's right to free speech and one's right to practice the religion of their choice? One does not really exist without the other, does it?

    5. In your world, anti-discrimination laws trump our Constitutional first amendment rights. This is what this debate boils down to. You have decided that the unwritten right to not be discriminated against is more important than an individual's first amendment rights. I understand that a state may introduce laws which prevent discrimination. However, in our list of enumerated rights, this is simply not among them. I think what is interesting is that you believe that once an individual dons an apron or sits at a desk, then his rights are suddenly erased as he is no longer a person, but a business. In the Sweet Cakes case, the defendant's lawyer asked a question which I found thought provoking. He asked, could discrimination laws force a rabbi to marry a Christian to a Jew? Could such a law force an architect to build a church?

    I believe that just because a law exists, does not mean the law is just or valid. I do believe in our Constitutional rights and do believe that they should be the primary interest when determining which behaviors to allow and which to prohibit. As I see it, anti-discrimination laws sound nice, but they too easily conflict with our Constitutional rights and, therefore, frequently make for bad law. At least, by adding an exception to such laws, they are made less bad then they would otherwise be.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We could claim not selling the cake and selling the cake are equivalent, except they are not. The default position would be to sell the cake from which it would be impossible to reasonable assume the baker's position.
    So you concede that baking and selling a cake does not necessarily create a message (if one does not know the baker's position when he sells a cake, then the baker has delivered no message).

    Therefore requiring one to bake a cake does not force that person to deliver a message and therefore is not a 1st amendment violation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, by not selling the cake, we absolutely know the baker's position, which means, by definition, he has sent a message. To remove all doubt, the baker has told us his message by clearly stating why he didn't sell the cake.
    But the message that the baker was sending when he refused to sell the gay couple the cake was not the reason he was punished. If he refused to sell the wedding cake to a gay couple a different reason than the one he stated, he would still have broken the law and been subject to a fine.

    So the particular message he was sending was irrelevant to whether he was punished and therefore it could not be reasoned that he was punished for his message.

    An analogy would be the movie Seven. The killer was definitely sending a message with the series of murders, but he wasn't being chased because he was sending a message but because he was killing people. Likewise the baker was not punished for sending a message but for refusing to sell wedding cake to a gay couple.
    Last edited by mican333; May 31st, 2017 at 01:00 PM.

  11. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. The Sweet Cakes case was decided in Oregon, but has not reached the Supreme Court level. Obviously, I feel the state court erred and my arguments support this premise.
    Yes, your arguments support that you feel the court erred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, you have misinterpreted the case you are citing. The issue was not that the court believed that a business couldn't invoke 1st amendment rights. The jurors did not believe the premise that the bakers were artists. They also relied on a slippery slope argument, asking, much like you have, what would happen if business A refused service to Muslims or bi-racial couples, et al. The court didn't accept the defendant's rebuttal that such a distinction has already been covered by prior Supreme Court precedent.
    I was merely referring to the additional order to cease and desist communicating their intent to make discriminatory business decisions in support of the argument that business decisions are not speech, which you seem to have missed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2. Yes, I just googled slippery slope. The basic premise stands. You have taken an action and extrapolated it into some behaviour which you believe is untenable.
    There is a difference between the term “slippery slope”, and a “slippery slope argument/fallacy”. Please support why the Muslim example should be disregarded as a slippery slope fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As the Sweet Cake lawyers argued and which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, distinctions can be made which would prevent the sort of slipper slope you are proposing.
    Please indicate the distinctions the Sweet Cake lawyer argued can be made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    3. You have now resorted to parsing words and grammar which I find a bit disingenuous. If you cannot reconcile what I mean when I say expressing one's first amendment rights versus utilizing those rights, then I think you are merely playing word games. For the purpose of this debate, I am using them interchangeably. When I demonstrate in the streets am I expressing or utilizing my first amendment rights? Who cares?
    No, you are the one playing word games. I have repeatedly explained why a business decision is not protected as free speech but governed by business conduct laws, and offered that this position is shared by the courts. Your response has been nothing more than repeating your initial claim with wildly-varying words and meanings. When you demonstrate in the streets you are not making business decisions which are governed by laws. By simply changing the wording you can’t make “business decisions and conduct” any closer in meaning to “expressing/utilizing/supporting free speech/amendment rights/religious views/whatever the heck you mean”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    4. Just to be on the safe side? Is there a practical difference between protecting one's right to free speech and one's right to practice the religion of their choice? One does not really exist without the other, does it?
    Yes, there is a difference, otherwise they wouldn’t both be in the amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    5. In your world, anti-discrimination laws trump our Constitutional first amendment rights.
    First of all it's not “in my world”, it’s in this world. Second, it’s not that anti-discrimination laws trump the 1st amendment, it’s that the conduct in question is recognized as business decisions governed by anti-discrimination laws and not as free speech or religious expression protected by the 1st.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I understand that a state may introduce laws which prevent discrimination. However, in our list of enumerated rights, this is simply not among them.
    That’s because the laws which prevent discrimination are separate from the “enumerated rights”. Just like the conduct governed by those laws is separate from the conduct protected by the enumerated rights. Why is this so hard for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think what is interesting is that you believe that once an individual dons an apron or sits at a desk, then his rights are suddenly erased as he is no longer a person, but a business.
    Another straw man. I never said the individual’s rights are suddenly erased.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In the Sweet Cakes case, the defendant's lawyer asked a question which I found thought provoking. He asked, could discrimination laws force a rabbi to marry a Christian to a Jew? Could such a law force an architect to build a church?
    You are misrepresenting the facts of the case. The lawyer never asked questions related to marrying jews or building churches. He made the argument that since the anti-discrimination laws could not force either of those scenarios, Sweet should not be forced either. However, what you’re missing is that who a rabbi marries depends on actual religious practices protected by the 1st’s 2nd clause, and neither of the scenarios are governed by the anti-discrimination laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As I see it, anti-discrimination laws sound nice, but they too easily conflict with our Constitutional rights and, therefore, frequently make for bad law.
    And you are entitled to your opinion. Luckily, the courts are wiser than both of us, and religious exemptions don’t appear to be happening any time soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    At least, by adding an exception to such laws, they are made less bad then they would otherwise be.
    So by violating the 1st’s 1st clause and providing exemptions for anti-discrimination laws only to a select group of people, you believe you’ve made what you think is a bad law less bad. Good luck with that.

  12. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    --new line--

    The reason we should have religious exemptions, is the same reason that we have(and should) freedom of religion enumerated in the const. According to the reasoning and logic here, general freedom should have been enough to cover any religious concerns. This line ignores a major reasoning behind the actions of vast portions of the population. Second, it ignores the danger that governments could and HAVE posed to the religious community.

    Case in point, prohibition. A law was passed that could have basically outlawed a central aspect of a major and common religious practice. Without a specific religious exemption, that religion would have been the recipient of a frontal attack by the u.s. gov.

    So the justification is two fold.
    1) It recognizes the motivations of a large portion of the population for which it represents. Such that just as a "medical" exemption identifies, it is equally justified to identify a "religious exemption".
    2) The gov has shown in the past it's ability to pass laws that effect religion in highly negative ways.


    Examples have been demanded of laws that would require such an exemption. I think the past is a strong enough indicator (even if it isn't often the case) that a religious exemption is necessary.


    The reason this is const is similar, protecting a specific group of peoples is not the same to establishing a religion. Allowing Catholics to celebrate mass with alcohol during prohibition, did not make Catholicism the official religion of America. The very idea that the gov can't recognize religion in any way, is to establish the religion of Atheism onto the gov.


    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

    “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

    The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

    Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

    “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

    The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

    Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

    “It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#KiYriP3QRbvfYsdZ.99
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,879
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Would animal sacrifice be ok?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The reason we should have religious exemptions, is the same reason that we have(and should) freedom of religion enumerated in the const. According to the reasoning and logic here, general freedom should have been enough to cover any religious concerns. This line ignores a major reasoning behind the actions of vast portions of the population. Second, it ignores the danger that governments could and HAVE posed to the religious community.

    Case in point, prohibition. A law was passed that could have basically outlawed a central aspect of a major and common religious practice. Without a specific religious exemption, that religion would have been the recipient of a frontal attack by the u.s. gov.
    I would say that's rather hyperbolic. I would not call that a "frontal assault" on religion but an "unintended consequence" of a particular law being enforced in a consistent manner.

    And also, unless you are arguing for people being able to violate any law at any time as long as they do it for religious reasons, then you concede that at least some of the time, people should not get religious exemptions from laws. I'm sure you would agree that someone should not get a religious exemption from homicide laws so they can perform a human sacrifice.

    So I don't see a consistent basis being offered for giving religious exemptions for laws.

    I mean I agree that wine at mass should not be outlawed but that's because I don't think alcohol should be outlawed at all. I'm only for outlawing things that I think are so bad that society has a duty to prevent people from doing it. So I don't see why religious people should be allowed to do these bad things just because they are doing them for religious reasons or as part of a ritual. If human sacrifice was the primary tenet of a religion, I'm fine with the government stepping in and preventing the adherents from killing someone and don't see an overriding religious freedom concern that justifies giving them an example.

    Of course there's a wide gulf between something as innocuous as wine and as awful as human sacrifice, but regardless, if it is agreed that people should not be allowed to do a particular action, then that goes for religious people as well.

    So please provide an example of something that people in general should not be allowed to do but religious exemptions should be given. Alcohol is not a valid example as it's not something that people should not be allowed to consume.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The reason this is const is similar, protecting a specific group of peoples is not the same to establishing a religion. Allowing Catholics to celebrate mass with alcohol during prohibition, did not make Catholicism the official religion of America.
    Actually, it would fit the definition of "establishment of religion" per the Establishment Clause. And that's not the same thing as making Catholicism the official religion of America.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The very idea that the gov can't recognize religion in any way, is to establish the religion of Atheism onto the gov.
    Actually, I agree with the ruling in the link you provided and do agree that atheism is effectively a religion (for legal purposes). But the primary tenet of the "religion" of atheism is that God does not exist.

    But ignoring religion does not raise any particular religion above the others and therefore it does not raise the religion of atheism above the other religions. Unless the government is actively favoring the notion that God does not exist, it is not favoring atheism.
    Last edited by mican333; June 7th, 2017 at 08:38 PM.

  15. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  16. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I would say that's rather hyperbolic. I would not call that a "frontal assault" on religion but an "unintended consequence" of a particular law being enforced in a consistent manner.
    Well, the point was that it wasn't some fringe aspect of the religion, rather it was a central tenant.
    As to 'unintentional', that really isn't relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And also, unless you are arguing for people being able to violate any law at any time as long as they do it for religious reasons, then you concede that at least some of the time, people should not get religious exemptions from laws. I'm sure you would agree that someone should not get a religious exemption from homicide laws so they can perform a human sacrifice.
    Are you going to equally argue that there is no instance where a person is currently allowed to kill another? (apart from self defense and military)?

    Your offering a straw-man. Human sacrifice is nothing like what has been described. and "established" religion is what is being protected, otherwise exactly what is protected by the religious liberty clause?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I don't see a consistent basis being offered for giving religious exemptions for laws.
    The standard is an existent and long standing religion in our nation. If our nation would have been practicing human sacrifice for 200 years and suddenly outlawed it, maybe you would have an objection consistent with the argument being offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I mean I agree that wine at mass should not be outlawed but that's because I don't think alcohol should be outlawed at all. I'm only for outlawing things that I think are so bad that society has a duty to prevent people from doing it. So I don't see why religious people should be allowed to do these bad things just because they are doing them for religious reasons or as part of a ritual. If human sacrifice was the primary tenet of a religion, I'm fine with the government stepping in and preventing the adherents from killing someone and don't see an overriding religious freedom concern that justifies giving them an example.
    Re- the challenge that no killing is allowed in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Of course there's a wide gulf between something as innocuous as wine and as awful as human sacrifice, but regardless, if it is agreed that people should not be allowed to do a particular action, then that goes for religious people as well.
    Then you have the burden to define what the "free exercise" clause has to do with... because it's in there and it refers to something, holding it to the standard of "if it doesn't clear human sacrifice then it is meaningless" is ridiculous and callous to your religious neighbors.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So please provide an example of something that people in general should not be allowed to do but religious exemptions should be given. Alcohol is not a valid example as it's not something that people should not be allowed to consume.
    Your standard is not relevant and is arbitrary. I gave an example from history where it occurred and SHOULD have been the case.
    Also, you may want to look into the history of prohibition before you so quickly conclude that it should have remained legal.
    I mean, the people wanted it pretty badly, and it was a horrible epidemic in the nation with serous consequences for the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, it would fit the definition of "establishment of religion" per the Establishment Clause. And that's not the same thing as making Catholicism the official religion of America.
    Support, I see no reason to accept it.
    The way I see it, it fits the "free exercise" clause. I don't see any way that the gov allowing a religious practice to occur establishes the religion as the national religion (which is what the "establishment" clause means). In fact, (see link below) my position is supported as it falling in precisely what it doesn't mean or do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The Anti-Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Anti-Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Anti-Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
    bold emphasis mine

    Per the evidence, I think your position is unsupported and misunderstand the establishment clause as it was intended.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But ignoring religion does not raise any particular religion above the others and therefore it does not raise the religion of atheism above the other religions. Unless the government is actively favoring the notion that God does not exist, it is not favoring atheism.
    Actually I demonstrated how it has in the past. By disallowing religious reasoning or justification, one is favoring the religion of atheism. and if the gov ignores religion, it is libel to attack some long standing ones by accident, such as the prohibition instance.

    I really don't know what more support you want then past experience. You seem to be taking a "but that will never happen again" stance, which I think is naive.


    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Would animal sacrifice be ok?
    Why do you ask?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, the point was that it wasn't some fringe aspect of the religion, rather it was a central tenant.
    As to 'unintentional', that really isn't relevant.
    And my point is that it's not a "frontal assault" on religion because frontal assaults don't happen unintentionally. But you aren't contesting that so I guess this point is settled.

    Nor do I think wine itself wss a central tenant. I would think that during prohibition, the churches switched the wine with some other liquid (like grape juice) and carried on with their ceremonies as they did before prohibition with little ill effects.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Are you going to equally argue that there is no instance where a person is currently allowed to kill another? (apart from self defense and military)?

    Your offering a straw-man. Human sacrifice is nothing like what has been described. and "established" religion is what is being protected, otherwise exactly what is protected by the religious liberty clause?
    A ritual human sacrifice is a religious event so it is certainly like what is being described by you. Yes, there are differences but I don't see the relevant difference in regard to your argument. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument but I believe you are arguing that we should allow religious exemptions because not allowing them will cause infringement on religious practice and you are using the prohibition issue as an example of that.

    But if I were agree with your argument that we should allow religious exemptions, then logically I would be for any and all religious exemptions no matter what for you have not provided any valid criteria of which exemptions we should accept and what exemptions we should reject. The one below is certainly not valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The standard is an existent and long standing religion in our nation. If our nation would have been practicing human sacrifice for 200 years and suddenly outlawed it, maybe you would have an objection consistent with the argument being offered.
    Then the standard is invalid. Existent and long-standing religions have no legal preference over new religions. All religions are legally equal under the law so to give a religion preferable treatment over another is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. So you can't give a religion preferable treatment because it's a long-standing religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then you have the burden to define what the "free exercise" clause has to do with... because it's in there and it refers to something, holding it to the standard of "if it doesn't clear human sacrifice then it is meaningless" is ridiculous and callous to your religious neighbors.
    Sorry. I don't understand this rebuttal.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your standard is not relevant and is arbitrary. I gave an example from history where it occurred and SHOULD have been the case.
    No you haven't. You will need to support that alcohol should have been illegal and religious rituals should have been exempted before it can be said that you gave an example from history where it should have been the case.

    I completely disagree that religions should have had an exclusive exemption from prohibition and therefore your position is not accepted until you support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, you may want to look into the history of prohibition before you so quickly conclude that it should have remained legal.
    That's pretty condescending. Why do you assume that I haven't adequately looked into the history of prohibition? Why do you assume that my conclusions were arrived quickly?

    Does it occur to you that I might know what I'm talking about on the issue?

    Shall we start a thread debating alcohol prohibition? I'm game.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Support, I see no reason to accept it.
    Okay. Here is the support. I bolded the pertinent point.

    The Everson Court also provides a list of state actions which violate the Establishment Clause. Everson at 15-16. The Court does not present this list as comprehensive, but rather as a minimal list of activities prohibited by the First Amendment. These include:

    -setting up a state church

    -passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally

    -forcing or otherwise influencing individuals to attend or not attend church

    -punishing people for ascribing to certain beliefs or disbeliefs or for attending or not
    attending church

    -taxes levied to support religious institutions or activities

    -governmental participation in religious organizations or participation by religious
    organizations in governmental activities


    https://nationalparalegal.edu/conLaw...gion&EstCl.asp

    Setting a law that exempts a religion from following laws that everyone else must follow constitutes "passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally"



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The way I see it, it fits the "free exercise" clause. I don't see any way that the gov allowing a religious practice to occur establishes the religion as the national religion (which is what the "establishment" clause means).
    Straw man. I never claimed that allowing exemptions establishes a national religion. And no, that is not what the establishment clause means.

    While establishing a national religion would certainly violate the establishment clause, there are all kinds of ways to violate the clause that do not set up a national religion. My list above shows that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Per the evidence, I think your position is unsupported and misunderstand the establishment clause as it was intended.
    Wrong. Your link shows that I am correct. Here it is and this time I will bold the part that shows I'm right.

    "The Anti-Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Anti-Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Anti-Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."

    So quite simply, allowing religious people to ignore laws that every one else has to follow (such as outlawing alcohol but letting religious people drink it in ceremonies) is a clear example of the government preferring one religion over another.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually I demonstrated how it has in the past. By disallowing religious reasoning or justification, one is favoring the religion of atheism.
    No, because the religion of atheism is disallowed with all of the other religions. There are no decisions that I'm aware that are based on the tenets of atheism as in they recognize that God does not exist. One cannot legally set policy on the basis of God's non-existence.

    I'd say you are confusing religious neutrality with favoring atheism. Doing something with no religious intent is not the same thing acknowledging the non-existence of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    and if the gov ignores religion, it is libel to attack some long standing ones by accident, such as the prohibition instance.
    Libel? I don't understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I really don't know what more support you want then past experience. You seem to be taking a "but that will never happen again" stance, which I think is naive.
    If you are referring to the prohibition example, I don't say that it won't happen again. In fact, I think what's happened with alcohol prohibition is happening right now with marijuana. To Rastafarians, marijuana as a religious sacrament and yet they aren't allowed to practice religious cannabis consumption in many states. But I don't argue for a religious exemption from marijuana laws but instead argue that there should be no such laws at all (treat grass like we treat alcohol).

    As far as an example of a GOOD law infringing on people's religious practices in an unacceptable way, I can't think of any past or present examples. And I've asked you to provide an example multiple times and you never have done so (as in provided an example that you think everyone should be forced to follow but religious people should not have to).
    Last edited by mican333; June 8th, 2017 at 02:42 PM.

  18. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And my point is that it's not a "frontal assault" on religion because frontal assaults don't happen unintentionally. But you aren't contesting that so I guess this point is settled.

    Nor do I think wine itself wss a central tenant. I would think that during prohibition, the churches switched the wine with some other liquid (like grape juice) and carried on with their ceremonies as they did before prohibition with little ill effects.
    It is my understanding that they recieved an exemption, but were still raided at times.
    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...ng-prohibition

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    A ritual human sacrifice is a religious event so it is certainly like what is being described by you. Yes, there are differences but I don't see the relevant difference in regard to your argument. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument but I believe you are arguing that we should allow religious exemptions because not allowing them will cause infringement on religious practice and you are using the prohibition issue as an example of that.
    Not simply ANY religious practice, but common and longstanding AMERCIAN religous practices.

    After all, the religious clause was not to protect muslims, but to protect CHRISTIANS, as they were the majority constituants at the time.
    Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then the standard is invalid. Existent and long-standing religions have no legal preference over new religions. All religions are legally equal under the law so to give a religion preferable treatment over another is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. So you can't give a religion preferable treatment because it's a long-standing religion.
    Not true, the new ones are protected because they are doing things LIKE what the long standing ones have.
    Also, they are not attempting to import something in our culuture that is already illegal.

    Basically, the religious freedom clause was written to protect the common practices of religion at the time, not the religious practices of backwater human sacrificers.
    That shoud be pretty clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Sorry. I don't understand this rebuttal.
    Your position is that there is no distinction between legal practices, and religious practices that should be legal.
    Yet, our const enumerates protections for religous practices, the "free excersise clause".

    So, you will need to explain what that clause means, if it isn't intended to protect specific religious excersises, such as the prhoabition example.
    Where religion recieved an exemption to an otherwise illegal act.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No you haven't. You will need to support that alcohol should have been illegal and religious rituals should have been exempted before it can be said that you gave an example from history where it should have been the case.

    I completely disagree that religions should have had an exclusive exemption from prohibition and therefore your position is not accepted until you support it.
    Clarification, I'm not holding that prohabition should have occured (though there is a case to be made) I am arguing that there should have been a religious exemption per the enumerated free excersise clause.
    Also, there is no argument for "exclusive", that is not relevant. For examle medical alcholo was apparently also exempt, but that is no relevant to the Catholic church having a valid exemption of it's own.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That's pretty condescending. Why do you assume that I haven't adequately looked into the history of prohibition? Why do you assume that my conclusions were arrived quickly?

    Does it occur to you that I might know what I'm talking about on the issue?

    Shall we start a thread debating alcohol prohibition? I'm game.
    Just saying, we are looking back, but at the time it was a HUGE problem.
    You hardly have woman facing down the threat of cannon fire for no reason.

    I just warn against over simplifing the past. You and I would argue from a modern standpoint, and if you and I existed at the time we would have lost and saw 2/3 of the states make it a const amendment.
    That is significant imo

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Setting a law that exempts a religion from following laws that everyone else must follow constitutes "passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally"
    That is not what "aiding" means. The catholic church was not "aided" by being given an exemption.
    You will need to support that it was if you are claiming it was.

    Your attempt to support recognized.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Straw man. I never claimed that allowing exemptions establishes a national religion. And no, that is not what the establishment clause means.

    While establishing a national religion would certainly violate the establishment clause, there are all kinds of ways to violate the clause that do not set up a national religion. My list above shows that.
    Fair enough, see above challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So quite simply, allowing religious people to ignore laws that every one else has to follow (such as outlawing alcohol but letting religious people drink it in ceremonies) is a clear example of the government preferring one religion over another.
    This is false, and your just ignoring the clarification.
    How else can the gov "accomodate for religious observances" in a way that won't be taken to apply to the first part as you read it?

    It is clear that your opinion and reading of this is not how it is held legally. It certainly wasn't the case for prohabition, were it was not found to violate the establishment clause.
    Bottom line
    " it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."

    The gov is not prohibited from giving exemptions to ACCOMMODATE religious observances and practices. Wine is clearly one of them, hence the exemption.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, because the religion of atheism is disallowed with all of the other religions. There are no decisions that I'm aware that are based on the tenets of atheism as in they recognize that God does not exist. One cannot legally set policy on the basis of God's non-existence.

    I'd say you are confusing religious neutrality with favoring atheism. Doing something with no religious intent is not the same thing acknowledging the non-existence of God.
    This line dropped to focus on the above, which I think is more relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Libel? I don't understand.
    Sorry, poor spelling.
    open to, able to, prone to.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are referring to the prohibition example, I don't say that it won't happen again. In fact, I think what's happened with alcohol prohibition is happening right now with marijuana. To Rastafarians, marijuana as a religious sacrament and yet they aren't allowed to practice religious cannabis consumption in many states. But I don't argue for a religious exemption from marijuana laws but instead argue that there should be no such laws at all (treat grass like we treat alcohol).

    As far as an example of a GOOD law infringing on people's religious practices in an unacceptable way, I can't think of any past or present examples. And I've asked you to provide an example multiple times and you never have done so (as in provided an example that you think everyone should be forced to follow but religious people should not have to).
    Good law or bad, the problem is the gov passes both, and that is the justification for religious exemptions. The gov is simply too dangerous to not specifically limit it in regards to religion.
    Prohabition may be good, or bad, but it is a PERFECT example of justifying the exestance, because it doesn't matter if it was good or bad it actually occured.

    so when you ask for a law, I can appeal to a past u.s. law, because all justification don't have to be occuring right now in order to be valid.

    We can argue the particulars of if a law is good or bad, we can argue that a secific exemption is religious
    Those are side issues to me, because we are arguing for the justification of the possibility of religious exemptions. Prohibition just so happens to be a perfect example of those conditions.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. Likes mican333 liked this post
  20. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not simply ANY religious practice, but common and longstanding AMERCIAN religous practices.

    After all, the religious clause was not to protect muslims, but to protect CHRISTIANS, as they were the majority constituants at the time.
    Right?
    That's all kind of irrelevant to the law as it is practiced today. Today everyone has the same rights as Christians. If in the past Christians had a specific religious advantage does not mean that they do, or should, have it today. Right?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not true, the new ones are protected because they are doing things LIKE what the long standing ones have.
    Also, they are not attempting to import something in our culuture that is already illegal.

    Basically, the religious freedom clause was written to protect the common practices of religion at the time, not the religious practices of backwater human sacrificers.
    That shoud be pretty clear.
    Which is irrelevant to whether specific religious practices should or should not be allowed today.

    Your argument seems to be nothing less than an appeal to tradition fallacy.

    New or foreign religions, under TODAY's law, are the legal equals of the traditional religions and if not, they should be if we are going to abide by the first amendment.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your position is that there is no distinction between legal practices, and religious practices that should be legal.
    It is? Here is the argument you are responding to:

    "if it is agreed that people should not be allowed to do a particular action, then that goes for religious people as well"

    I don't see that as being the same as the argument you are attributing to me. I'm just saying that if something is illegal in general, it should be illegal for religious people as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Clarification, I'm not holding that prohabition should have occured (though there is a case to be made) I am arguing that there should have been a religious exemption per the enumerated free excersise clause.
    But if one holds the position that prohibition should not have occurred, then they reject the position that the church should have had an exemption to the law for saying that one agrees that a small portion of the population should not have to obey a law includes the premise that others should have had to follow the law. I don't agree that a small portion should not have had to follow the law. I hold that no one should have had to follow that law.

    So I disagree that the church should have been exempt from prohibition and therefore prohibition is not a valid example of a justified exemption.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just saying, we are looking back, but at the time it was a HUGE problem.
    You hardly have woman facing down the threat of cannon fire for no reason.
    Being committed to a cause does not mean that one was right. I think prohibition was a huge mistake and history seems to agree with me. It wasn't reversed years later because it was seen as a good thing. It was reversed because it apparently made a bad problem even worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I just warn against over simplifing the past. You and I would argue from a modern standpoint, and if you and I existed at the time we would have lost and saw 2/3 of the states make it a const amendment.
    That is significant imo
    But not as significant has having the advantage of hindsight. One who can see the results of an action after it was occurred can better judge the effectiveness of the action than those who haven't seen the results yet (which would be those who wanted prohibition before it took place).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not what "aiding" means. The catholic church was not "aided" by being given an exemption.
    Of course it was. "Aided" means "helped" and it certainly helps one to be given an exemption to law that they don't want to follow.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is false, and your just ignoring the clarification.
    How else can the gov "accomodate for religious observances" in a way that won't be taken to apply to the first part as you read it?

    It is clear that your opinion and reading of this is not how it is held legally. It certainly wasn't the case for prohabition, were it was not found to violate the establishment clause.
    Bottom line
    " it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."
    But giving exemptions to laws that everyone else must follow is a bit more than just making accommodations. It is giving religious legal preference over other beliefs which does violate the establishment clause.

    Again, what if the issue was human sacrifice. If a religion was given exemption for killing people, it would not be a mere "accommodation" but drastically giving religions preferential treatment. The more valid the law, the more preferential the treatment is. That's why prohibition is such a weak example - it's a law that practically no one wants anyway and therefore the notion of an exemption seems somewhat reasonable. But if one is arguing for exemptions in general, then one should able to justify religious exemptions to ANY law, good and bad.

    And besides that, I'm not hearing an argument for exemptions in general. If I were to accept your argument regarding prohibition, then I would agree that in ONE instance, an exemption should be given. But that agreement does not mean that I should agree with a different proposed exemption.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good law or bad, the problem is the gov passes both, and that is the justification for religious exemptions. The gov is simply too dangerous to not specifically limit it in regards to religion.
    Actually, not allowing the government to give religions exemptions to civil law does limit the government ability to influence religion. The government giving a particular religion an exemption to law, elevates that religion above all others in some respects. Forcing the government to treat all faiths equally limits the government's ability to play favorites when it comes to religion.

    And even if I did accept that religious exemptions should exist, how does one determine that a particular exemption should be given? If the decision-making process is in the hands of the government, then the "dangerous" government is still deciding whether particular exemptions should exist. If the government is not going to decide whether exemptions should be given, then who is deciding instead?

    If I happened to agree that an exemption should have been allowed for prohibition, that does not logically compel me to agree that any other proposed exemption should be allowed as well, does it? So either way, I'm not seeing an argument supporting that religious exemptions should be given in general - just that there should have been one regarding prohibition.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We can argue the particulars of if a law is good or bad, we can argue that a secific exemption is religious
    Those are side issues to me, because we are arguing for the justification of the possibility of religious exemptions. Prohibition just so happens to be a perfect example of those conditions.
    Actually whether a law is bad or good is very significant. I think everyone should follow good laws and I don't think people should be forced to follow bad laws (like prohibition). So the fact that I agree that churches should have been allowed to serve wine during prohibition (because EVERYONE should have been exempted from prohibition) does not lead me to agree that religious exemptions should be given for good laws (and I think most laws are good laws).

    Do do you have an argument for giving religious exemption for good laws? If not, then I have no reason to agree that we should give exemptions for laws that I support (such as the law that doesn't allow businesses to discriminate in which customers it sells to).

  21. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,879
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Why do you ask?
    Just wondering if there's a line. How about faith healing in the case of a minor?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That's all kind of irrelevant to the law as it is practiced today. Today everyone has the same rights as Christians. If in the past Christians had a specific religious advantage does not mean that they do, or should, have it today. Right?
    That is because they have gained the description I pointed out. They pass the test, yes?
    They are established in America, and have been practicing peacefully for a while.

    A religion couldn't come in that violates current law, now could it? We wouldn't throw out murder laws to allow the murdering canable tribe into america right?

    So it isn't irrelevant, it is the context of the clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Which is irrelevant to whether specific religious practices should or should not be allowed today.

    Your argument seems to be nothing less than an appeal to tradition fallacy.

    New or foreign religions, under TODAY's law, are the legal equals of the traditional religions and if not, they should be if we are going to abide by the first amendment.
    Not so, the const would not protect that cannibalistic human sacrifice religion.

    Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing for the specific practices of current religions, I'm pointing to the KIND of practices those religions establish.
    As for appeal to tradition, that is basically the rule of law called Precedence, when we are speaking of legal issues. Right?

    So the form would go like this.
    The freedom of religious expression clause was written with common christian practices in mind. Such as going to church, prostlatizing, prayer, communion etc.
    So a new religion X is protected equally, when it goes to church, prostalizes etc..
    Human sacrifice is a religious practice, but isn't one established (established here is being legal and lawful for an extended period of time in our culture).


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is? Here is the argument you are responding to:

    "if it is agreed that people should not be allowed to do a particular action, then that goes for religious people as well"

    I don't see that as being the same as the argument you are attributing to me. I'm just saying that if something is illegal in general, it should be illegal for religious people as well.
    Isn't that because you see no distinction between religious actions and any potential illegal act.
    So you don't see any difference between outlawing alcohol, and alcohol used as a sacrament? IE there is no difference in your mind to a Budweiser and communion wine?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But if one holds the position that prohibition should not have occurred, then they reject the position that the church should have had an exemption to the law for saying that one agrees that a small portion of the population should not have to obey a law includes the premise that others should have had to follow the law. I don't agree that a small portion should not have had to follow the law. I hold that no one should have had to follow that law.

    So I disagree that the church should have been exempt from prohibition and therefore prohibition is not a valid example of a justified exemption.
    So I guess as long as the gov always acts according your personal tastes then everything will be fine, and we can just do away with the free exercise clause in the const.

    Seriously, I'm confused by this point.

    My argument goes.
    We should have religious exemptions, because in the past the gov has done things which warrant religious exemptions, and thus has proved it may be necessary in the future.

    your response is.
    I don't agree with what the gov did in the past, so that isn't a valid point.
    or
    That was then, this is now.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Being committed to a cause does not mean that one was right. I think prohibition was a huge mistake and history seems to agree with me. It wasn't reversed years later because it was seen as a good thing. It was reversed because it apparently made a bad problem even worse.
    Indeed it may, but that didn't stop the gov from passing laws (const amendment no less) that would have justified a religious exemption.

    The fact that our gov is capable of,and has in the past established laws that themselves justify an exemption is the highest proof possible that such exemptions should exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Of course it was. "Aided" means "helped" and it certainly helps one to be given an exemption to law that they don't want to follow.
    So the fact that you are not being personally attacked by Isis right now, means that they are helping you?
    Your logic simply doesn't follow.

    Exactly how was the catholic church "helped" over others or in relation to another religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But giving exemptions to laws that everyone else must follow is a bit more than just making accommodations. It is giving religious legal preference over other beliefs which does violate the establishment clause.

    Again, what if the issue was human sacrifice. If a religion was given exemption for killing people, it would not be a mere "accommodation" but drastically giving religions preferential treatment. The more valid the law, the more preferential the treatment is. That's why prohibition is such a weak example - it's a law that practically no one wants anyway and therefore the notion of an exemption seems somewhat reasonable. But if one is arguing for exemptions in general, then one should able to justify religious exemptions to ANY law, good and bad.

    And besides that, I'm not hearing an argument for exemptions in general. If I were to accept your argument regarding prohibition, then I would agree that in ONE instance, an exemption should be given. But that agreement does not mean that I should agree with a different proposed exemption.
    I have addressed human sacrifices, if you are going to attack my argument then you will have to use examples that actually fit the argument.

    As to the last bit, you are correct. Accepting it in principle is not the same as accepting it in a specific example.

    Free exercise of religion is protected, not simply beliefs, the religious exemptions I have defended do not give one religion preference over another.

    Your assertion that prohibition is a weak example is goal shifting IMO.
    showing a past example is not sufficient for you, but you want a current example and beyond that, a current example where a good law would some how also target a longstanding religious practice?

    That is simply not a burden that is necessary for me to prove my case. Past events are sufficient and I offered one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, not allowing the government to give religions exemptions to civil law does limit the government ability to influence religion. The government giving a particular religion an exemption to law, elevates that religion above all others in some respects. Forcing the government to treat all faiths equally limits the government's ability to play favorites when it comes to religion.

    And even if I did accept that religious exemptions should exist, how does one determine that a particular exemption should be given? If the decision-making process is in the hands of the government, then the "dangerous" government is still deciding whether particular exemptions should exist. If the government is not going to decide whether exemptions should be given, then who is deciding instead?

    If I happened to agree that an exemption should have been allowed for prohibition, that does not logically compel me to agree that any other proposed exemption should be allowed as well, does it? So either way, I'm not seeing an argument supporting that religious exemptions should be given in general - just that there should have been one regarding prohibition.
    I think a point of confusion for you is the idea of some kind of religion specific exemption. It's not like I'm arguing that only the Catholics should have been able to use wine in their mass.
    It would have also applied to any other religion active at the time that did so.
    So that kinda mutes your point about "helping" one religion over others. it simply wouldn't apply to other religions as to effect them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, not allowing the government to give religions exemptions to civil law does limit the government ability to influence religion. The government giving a particular religion an exemption to law, elevates that religion above all others in some respects. Forcing the government to treat all faiths equally limits the government's ability to play favorites when it comes to religion.
    I don't understand what you mean here?
    Are you saying, that say, we only allowed Catholics to marry, but not Protestants or Muslims?
    Then that would help Catholics and thus be establishing a religion?

    I would agree to that. However if it applies to all religions then your point doesn't hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And even if I did accept that religious exemptions should exist, how does one determine that a particular exemption should be given? If the decision-making process is in the hands of the government, then the "dangerous" government is still deciding whether particular exemptions should exist. If the government is not going to decide whether exemptions should be given, then who is deciding instead?
    The free Free Exercise Clause clause man. Those founders knew what they were doing I think.
    So if the gov wanted to outlaw some act that religion(s) currently and commonly take part in, then they should be exempt.

    Clearly human sacrifice doesn't fall into that.

    Again if you don't agree with that, then you need to explain to me exactly what the "free exercise clause" means to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If I happened to agree that an exemption should have been allowed for prohibition, that does not logically compel me to agree that any other proposed exemption should be allowed as well, does it? So either way, I'm not seeing an argument supporting that religious exemptions should be given in general - just that there should have been one regarding prohibition.
    Yea, if you just so happen to agree, your correct. Because you are not appealing to logic but whim.
    However if you agree to the argument and justification I put forward, then you have a standard to logically apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually whether a law is bad or good is very significant. I think everyone should follow good laws and I don't think people should be forced to follow bad laws (like prohibition). So the fact that I agree that churches should have been allowed to serve wine during prohibition (because EVERYONE should have been exempted from prohibition) does not lead me to agree that religious exemptions should be given for good laws (and I think most laws are good laws).

    Do do you have an argument for giving religious exemption for good laws? If not, then I have no reason to agree that we should give exemptions for laws that I support (such as the law that doesn't allow businesses to discriminate in which customers it sells to).
    Yes, but if you don't agree that exemptions should be given for bad laws (when they actually exist), then there is no standard of measure that can possibly overcome your opinion about laws YOU deem as good.

    Your standard is not a reasonable one. Basically any example I give that you agree with is going to be called a "bad" law, and not be applicable in your eyes.
    I see no reason to jump through that moving hoop.

    I have offered a standard
    Applied to history
    and supported my position.

    Other than that, I see no challenge to what I have said other than your personal conclusion that you are not convinced.
    And you have every right to that.

    ----------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Just wondering if there's a line. How about faith healing in the case of a minor?
    I set out the "line" above.

    ======
    more reading
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b9c944c1b53a

    exemptions required unless a compelling gov interest was violated
    Last edited by MindTrap028; June 9th, 2017 at 11:19 AM.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  23. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is because they have gained the description I pointed out. They pass the test, yes?
    They are established in America, and have been practicing peacefully for a while.

    A religion couldn't come in that violates current law, now could it? We wouldn't throw out murder laws to allow the murdering canable tribe into america right?
    Actually we would allow those whose religion advocates human sacrifice in the country. We just wouldn't allow them to perform their rituals.

    We don't let ANYONE violate our laws for the sake of their religious practice and whether those people belong to a well-established religion or a brand-new or foreign religion makes no difference at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not so, the const would not protect that cannibalistic human sacrifice religion.
    Yes it would. It just wouldn't allow them to kill people. But if I want to practice a religion that has human sacrifice as one of its major tenets, I have the first amendment right to do so. I just can't actually sacrifice anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing for the specific practices of current religions, I'm pointing to the KIND of practices those religions establish.
    As for appeal to tradition, that is basically the rule of law called Precedence, when we are speaking of legal issues. Right?

    So the form would go like this.
    The freedom of religious expression clause was written with common christian practices in mind. Such as going to church, prostlatizing, prayer, communion etc.
    So a new religion X is protected equally, when it goes to church, prostalizes etc..
    Human sacrifice is a religious practice, but isn't one established (established here is being legal and lawful for an extended period of time in our culture).
    But if human sacrifice was established, it would still be against the law. Do you contest this? If not, then it's clear that being established does not prevent an activity from remaining illegal.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Isn't that because you see no distinction between religious actions and any potential illegal act.
    So you don't see any difference between outlawing alcohol, and alcohol used as a sacrament? IE there is no difference in your mind to a Budweiser and communion wine?
    I do see a difference between a religious illegal act and a secular illegal act. But I don't see a difference that leads me to think that they should be treated differently under the law nor have I been made aware of such a difference in this debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So I guess as long as the gov always acts according your personal tastes then everything will be fine, and we can just do away with the free exercise clause in the const.
    Until you support that my position does away with the free exercise clause, this comment is rejected.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My argument goes.
    We should have religious exemptions, because in the past the gov has done things which warrant religious exemptions, and thus has proved it may be necessary in the future.

    your response is.
    I don't agree with what the gov did in the past, so that isn't a valid point.
    No. My response to your argument is support or retract that the government has done things in the past that warrant religious exemption.

    The fact that I disagree with the law that you are saying that there should be an exemption for does not mean that I agree that there should have been a religious exemption to that law. So again, you will need to support that an exemption was warranted.

    As far as I can tell, your only attempt at supporting this is saying that established and traditional religious practices should get an exemption from new laws. But this seems to be nothing more than your opinion so you will need to support that this is so before this belief of yours is supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Indeed it may, but that didn't stop the gov from passing laws (const amendment no less) that would have justified a religious exemption.
    I disagree that the law justified a religious exemption so you will need to support that it did before I can consider accepting that as a premise.

    And let me make my position clear - I disagree with a Religious exemption for prohibition. In other words, if prohibition was the law of the land and it was proposed that a religious exemption should be given for religious ceremonies, I would vote "no" on that. I would vote "yes" on repealing prohibition in general but I hold that giving an exemption for just religious purposes violates the establishment clause and therefore should not happen. Even though I think religious people should be able to use wine in a ceremony, I would not agree with allowing this via a route that violates the first amendment.

    So you will actually need to make a SUPPORTED argument for a religious exemption for prohibition before you can make an argument that is based on the premise that this exemption should be allowed.

    Until you do that, I do not accept any argument that is based on the premise that this particular exemption should be allowed, despite the fact that I do agree that religious use of alcohol should not be prohibited.

    And for the record, I NEVER said that I was in favor of a religious exemption for prohibition. I've consistently said that I think prohibition is a bad law and that wine should be allowed to be used in religious ceremonies because I disagree with outlawing wine in general. But I could see that my position as earlier stated was fogging the issue a bit so I'm making it clear that I do not support religious exemption for prohibition.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the fact that you are not being personally attacked by Isis right now, means that they are helping you?
    Your logic simply doesn't follow.

    Exactly how was the catholic church "helped" over others or in relation to another religion?
    I didn't say that they were helped (as in they received help in the past).

    I'm saying that giving them an exemption does help them. Certainly if one can't perform a ceremony due to a law and then they are given an exemption to the law, they have received help in being able to perform their ceremony.

    Is this debate actually degenerating into a semantic debate over what receiving help actually means?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have addressed human sacrifices, if you are going to attack my argument then you will have to use examples that actually fit the argument.
    I am making my own argument and am no less justified in picking my example as you are justified in picking your example. My argument that uses human sacrifice highlights the issues regarding religious exemption just fine.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As to the last bit, you are correct. Accepting it in principle is not the same as accepting it in a specific example.

    Free exercise of religion is protected, not simply beliefs, the religious exemptions I have defended do not give one religion preference over another.
    But it gives religion preference over non-religion. If you want to use wine for a religious ceremony, fine. If you want to use the exact same amount of wine to have with your dinner, you can't. So it gives a religious ceremony preference over a secular activity.

    I see no reason why the use of wine in a religious ceremony should be given legal preference over a glass of wine at dinner. To argue that the ceremonial wine is more important is to put religious activity above a drink at dinner. And I understand that to those who perform the ceremony, the religious use of wine is indeed more important than the wine at dinner. But their reasoning for this is religious reasoning and for the government to adopt that reasoning is to give religion preference over secularism.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't understand what you mean here?
    Are you saying, that say, we only allowed Catholics to marry, but not Protestants or Muslims?
    Then that would help Catholics and thus be establishing a religion?

    I would agree to that. However if it applies to all religions then your point doesn't hold.
    And that's a HUGE "if". I'm pretty sure the prohibition example was exclusively aiding Catholics.

    I'm saying that allowing the government to play favorites is a direct governmental involvement in religions and therefore gives government more control over religion. And allowing religious exemptions is a way for the government to play favorites. And saying that the government cannot give exemptions prevents the government from playing favorites and therefore limits governmental control over religion, not increases it.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The free Free Exercise Clause clause man. Those founders knew what they were doing I think.
    So if the gov wanted to outlaw some act that religion(s) currently and commonly take part in, then they should be exempt.

    Clearly human sacrifice doesn't fall into that.

    Again if you don't agree with that, then you need to explain to me exactly what the "free exercise clause" means to begin with.
    Shifting the burden. If you are going to argue that the free exercise clause gives religions an exemption from obeying secular law, then YOU need to explain to ME exactly what the "free exercise clause" means and how it actually gives current and commonly practiced religious actions legal exemption from secular law. And if you are going to do that, please use a valid source for your explanation of what the FEC is (like wikipedia).

    Until you support that the FEC does what you say it does, your claim regarding it fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, but if you don't agree that exemptions should be given for bad laws (when they actually exist), then there is no standard of measure that can possibly overcome your opinion about laws YOU deem as good.

    Your standard is not a reasonable one. Basically any example I give that you agree with is going to be called a "bad" law, and not be applicable in your eyes.
    So you're saying that if you forward a law that I agree with, I'm going to call it a "bad" law just to mess up your argument? That's ridiculous! I hope you'd think I was a more honest debater than that. No, I promise if you provide a law that I agree with, I won't call it a bad law and if I do call it bad law, I will fully explain why I think it's a bad law if you want. I can, right now, explain why I think prohibition is a bad law and it won't be difficult considering that it's near consensus that it was a bad law and almost no one wants to reinstate it.

    But really, now that I think about it more, it doesn't matter if I think the law is good or bad. Either way, I hold that a religious exemption violates the first amendment and would not support. For bad laws, I support a GENERAL exemption (as in everyone is exempt, which of course includes religious people) but I don't support an exemption for just religious people.

    So you can stick with prohibition exclusively for now. Just explain why should have been an exemption for religious people only (why we should allow wine at mass but still outlaw wine at dinner). I see no basis to agree that established and common religious practices deserve an exemption from the laws that all others must follow.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have offered a standard
    Applied to history
    and supported my position.
    I disagree. Any support you have offered is being currently challenged or has been defeated. Don't declare victory while the battle is still on.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Other than that, I see no challenge to what I have said other than your personal conclusion that you are not convinced.
    And you have every right to that.
    Well, when you make an argument it is your burden to support it so you either need to convince me or provide support for it (if what you forward meets the burden of support, then it doesn't matter if I'm convinced - support is support).

    I have seen no solid legal principle forwarded for allowing an exemption for prohibition or any other religious exemption (any that aren't currently being challenged in debate, anyway).
    Last edited by mican333; June 9th, 2017 at 06:04 PM.

 

 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion is not a constitutional right
    By theophilus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 12:04 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  3. Home schooling not a constitutional right in California
    By MindTrap028 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Another Constitutional Convention?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Goldphoenix, on Constitutional Issues
    By Netopalis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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