Religious Exemption Laws

[mican333]

It's not too uncommon for groups to argue that they can legally discriminate against gays in situations where one typically cannot because they have the right to follow their own religious conscience under freedom of religion. This is commonly referred to as "religious liberty".

And recently one forwarded the same reasoning to discriminate against a mixed-race couple.

"An event venue in Mississippi has issued an apology after its owner was shown on video saying that her “Christian belief” led her to decline hosting a wedding ceremony for an interracial couple.

The video of the incident, which went viral over the weekend, shows an exchange between a woman later identified as the venue owner and a black woman named LaKambria Welch. In an interview with digital news outlet Deep South Voice, Welch says that she went to Boone’s Camp Event Hall In Booneville to clarify why it had recently said that “because of [the company’s] beliefs” it would not host a wedding ceremony for her brother, who is black, and his fiancée, who is white."

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...ious-exemption

And to be honest, IF we do accept the "religious liberty" argument, she should be able to do that. I understand that it's not a common religious viewpoint that races should not mix but there is no judge to say "that is a religious belief but that other belief isn't" so one can invoke religion to justify pretty much any view point.

But my primary argument is that the "religious liberty" argument is bunk. Clearly, we would not let that be an excuse for a serious crime, like someone murdering another person because their religious belief advocated that murder. And the same goes for smaller legal issues as well. If a secular person must follow a law then a religious person must follow it as well. And if a religious person should not have to follow a particular law, then no on should have to follow it.

To say "You can refuse to serve gays because of a religious objection" is valid but "You can refuse to serve gays because you just don't like them" is not valid seems to be a direct violation of, well, religious freedom. Legally, religious reasoning is not inherently superior to secular reasoning. If we are to argue that on should not be forced to violate one's conscience in order to obey a law, then it doesn't matter if it's religious or secular conscience that we are protecting.

So if one wants to argue that companies should be allowed to refuse to serve gays, I disagree of course. But if one is to hold that they should be able to do it, there is no valid legal reason to hold that religious motivation is a superior reason than other reasons.

[CowboyX]

Legally, religious reasoning is not inherently superior to secular reasoning.

Indeed, except that the inverse is the case. Especially given the facts that we are a secular country founded on secular thinking. The first amendment diametrically contradicts the first commandment.

Unfortunately, this is the thrust of the attack against so many has taken. I say unfortunate because there is an actual argument to be made regarding artistic expression and creativity which I would support. That argument, however, is much more narrow and wouldn't allow someone renting a hall to get away with their bigotry.

From what I know of the case, the famous baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple never refused to sell them a cake. He supposedly said he would. What he wouldn't do is use his artistic expertise in creating a cake for them. Therein lies the difference.

[Ibelsd]

It's not too uncommon for groups to argue that they can legally discriminate against gays in situations where one typically cannot because they have the right to follow their own religious conscience under freedom of religion. This is commonly referred to as "religious liberty".

And recently one forwarded the same reasoning to discriminate against a mixed-race couple.

"An event venue in Mississippi has issued an apology after its owner was shown on video saying that her “Christian belief” led her to decline hosting a wedding ceremony for an interracial couple.

The video of the incident, which went viral over the weekend, shows an exchange between a woman later identified as the venue owner and a black woman named LaKambria Welch. In an interview with digital news outlet Deep South Voice, Welch says that she went to Boone’s Camp Event Hall In Booneville to clarify why it had recently said that “because of [the company’s] beliefs” it would not host a wedding ceremony for her brother, who is black, and his fiancée, who is white."

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...ious-exemption

And to be honest, IF we do accept the "religious liberty" argument, she should be able to do that. I understand that it's not a common religious viewpoint that races should not mix but there is no judge to say "that is a religious belief but that other belief isn't" so one can invoke religion to justify pretty much any view point.

But my primary argument is that the "religious liberty" argument is bunk. Clearly, we would not let that be an excuse for a serious crime, like someone murdering another person because their religious belief advocated that murder. And the same goes for smaller legal issues as well. If a secular person must follow a law then a religious person must follow it as well. And if a religious person should not have to follow a particular law, then no on should have to follow it.

To say "You can refuse to serve gays because of a religious objection" is valid but "You can refuse to serve gays because you just don't like them" is not valid seems to be a direct violation of, well, religious freedom. Legally, religious reasoning is not inherently superior to secular reasoning. If we are to argue that on should not be forced to violate one's conscience in order to obey a law, then it doesn't matter if it's religious or secular conscience that we are protecting.

So if one wants to argue that companies should be allowed to refuse to serve gays, I disagree of course. But if one is to hold that they should be able to do it, there is no valid legal reason to hold that religious motivation is a superior reason than other reasons.

Perhaps, the better argument is not that there should be special carve-outs for religious beliefs, but that people should not be forced to express themselves contrary to their beliefs whether religious or not.

First, your argument regarding murder has been clearly stated in court precedent (Reynolds v. U.S. 1879). One cannot commit an illegal act and claim religious exemption from the law. So, we need to look at your argument with a more narrow lens. If you go through case law and court precedent, then I think the issue is whether suppression of 1st amendment rights is warranted is probably based on something of a two-prong test where if either prong is true, then state suppression of the 1st amendment is acceptable.

1. Would the expression result in serious harm? In your example, you used murder which clearly results in serious harm. Hence, any behavior which breaks the law and where the law demonstrates it is intended to prevent serious harm, then that behavior would be exempt from 1st amendment protection.

2. Would suppression of expression meet some compelling state interest? For instance, the court, at one time, ruled that a law which mandates pledging allegiance to the flag served a compelling state interest which trumped students' rights to decline based on religious beliefs. This ruling may have been reversed later, but it is merely an example to demonstrate a compelling state interest.

So, for me, you'd have to show that suppressing the store's right to deny inter-racial couples meets either prong noted above. Maybe you can. Maybe you cannot. Similarly, you'd have to offer a separate argument for those seeking single-sex marriage services. Again, maybe you can and maybe you cannot.

The point I'd like to make here is that limiting the 1st amendment to only religious beliefs/viewpoints seems unnecessarily narrow. And while I do understand your argument is based on those specifically claiming those beliefs, I am not sure they specifically oppose freedom of expression for non-religious beliefs. They are simply making the argument on behalf of their own beliefs and from where their own beliefs originate. Or maybe, you are just assuming a very narrow definition of religion. The SCOTUS has not been entirely consistent over the years which isn't helpful but have swung between narrow and broader definitions.

What you may quarrel with, but I suspect you don't, is SCOTUS precedent which actually narrows protections for commercial speech which is the kind of speech we are really discussing here. So, while you are worried about a separate exception for religious speech, you seem to have no issue when it comes to exceptions (or lack of them) on behalf of commercial speech. I'd rather like to think speech is speech and it is either harmful and needs to be restricted or it is not and does not. I also tend to think harm is a fluid term. What may be a compelling state interest today may not be a compelling interest tomorrow. Going back to your example of the inter-racial couple, I'd like to think the harm by a business to refuse them service is significantly less than the harm 100 years ago in that one business or a small subset of businesses really cannot have significant impact over the inter-racial couple's ability to get the service or product they need. At the very least, we should agree the impact is less today then it was then.

We may still agree that there is a compelling state interest to continue to ensure inter-racial couples are given complete access to the marketplace. It comes down to whether you agree with my two-prong test stated above and whether we agree that the inter-racial example meets either of the two prongs. Or, if this is really about same-sex marriages, then apply the prongs to that instead. I am hoping we can both agree the first prong isn't met. As for the 2nd prong, I am happy to hear your argument. Otherwise, we largely agree that religion, itself, should not drive the ability to be exempted from a particular law, although, it may be used to demonstrate a particular belief.

[MindTrap028]

If we are to argue that on should not be forced to violate one's conscience in order to obey a law, then it doesn't matter if it's religious or secular conscience that we are protecting.

I think that in terms of a constitutional argument, this is a categorical error.
In that, there was no distinction in their mind or between the ideas at the time between a "religious" motivation and a "secular" motivation.
In the concepts, the way your using "secular" would be a kind of religion.

I mean, I understand the distinction you are making, and I won't argue that it isn't valid or not helpful.
Simply that I agree with the statement that people shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience in order to comply with the law.

[CowboyX]

I think that in terms of a constitutional argument, this is a categorical error.
In that, there was no distinction in their mind or between the ideas at the time between a "religious" motivation and a "secular" motivation.
In the concepts, the way your using "secular" would be a kind of religion.

Could you expand on this?

[MindTrap028]

Could you expand on this?

Just that any "moral" conviction. Would have been as "religious", or been what they were talking about in seeking to protect in the const with that clause about religion.

[CowboyX]

Just that any "moral" conviction. Would have been as "religious", or been what they were talking about in seeking to protect in the const with that clause about religion.

I still don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that people of the time only had religious ideas?

[MindTrap028]

Depends on what you mean as "religious". which is my point.
I think their idea of religion included what some today now separate.

IE, a "secular" moral conviction of today, would have just been considered a "religious conviction".

They were not trying to set religious moral convictions over and above secular ones. They were just trying to protect and ensure that people could live their lives free of gov force to live and act against their convictions, which they identified as "religious".

[mican333]

Perhaps, the better argument is not that there should be special carve-outs for religious beliefs, but that people should not be forced to express themselves contrary to their beliefs whether religious or not.

But most of the proposed exceptions aren't about speech.

The only one that seems to be about speech is the wedding cake one.

The sought exemptions for covering birth control in company insurance, or not filling out prescriptions for birth control or morning after pills, or not servicing gay couples for adoption, or renting out facilities to gay or mixed-race couples, is people arguing that they should not have to follow a particular law due to conflicts with their religious faith - that following the edicts of their faith overrides whatever legal responsibility they may have to do those things.

And I'm arguing that that is a false argument.

Taking the renting the facilities situation. If one wants to argue that NO ONE should be forced to rent out their facilities if they don't want to, then we can discuss whether people have a right to that with their property and if we agree that they should have the right to refuse to rent, then there is no need for religious exemption. And if we determine that they don't have the right to pick and choose who they rent to, then there can be no religious exemption (just like there can't be for murder).

So while I see no problems with what you are arguing, I don't think it really addresses the argument that I'm presenting.

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

I think that in terms of a constitutional argument, this is a categorical error.
In that, there was no distinction in their mind or between the ideas at the time between a "religious" motivation and a "secular" motivation.
In the concepts, the way your using "secular" would be a kind of religion.

I mean, I understand the distinction you are making, and I won't argue that it isn't valid or not helpful.
Simply that I agree with the statement that people shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience in order to comply with the law.

Well, I'm sure you'd agree that "following one's conscience" as an excuse to commit murder won't fly so clearly following one's conscience is generally not a valid reason to not comply with the law.

And I am referring to those who argue that they should be able to violate the law that everyone else has to follow because they are doing so for religious reasons. I mean that it's pretty much the definition of "religious exemption".

And I think you are kind of backing up my point, in those situations where we agree that one should be allowed to act on their own morality (in other words where there is no legitimate legal reason to bar someone from acting as he/she wishes) whether the motivation can be pointed to a religious belief or a secular moral belief should make no difference at all. So there is no valid reason for a "religious exemption" to a law. If the law must be followed by all, then the relgious must follow it as well. And if one should be able to do X because of their conscience, then it doesn't matter what the root of their belief is.

[MindTrap028]

Well, I'm sure you'd agree that "following one's conscience" as an excuse to commit murder won't fly so clearly following one's conscience is generally not a valid reason to not comply with the law.

No I don't agree. There are too many assumptions you are making that matter.

How about this.
Would you agree that "following ones conscience" is the ONLY possible justification to JUSTLY disobeying laws?

So for example suppose there was a law that compelled you to murder.

I think if you can see that extreme, then we can make progress.

And I am referring to those who argue that they should be able to violate the law that everyone else has to follow because they are doing so for religious reasons. I mean that it's pretty much the definition of "religious exemption".

This is a problem of Gov over reach, and the law to protect religious liberty is a DIRECT limitation on that.

So what is the gov job, to protect rights, or to compel social actions? (Avoid playing in any perceived grey area here).

And I think you are kind of backing up my point, in those situations where we agree that one should be allowed to act on their own morality (in other words where there is no legitimate legal reason to bar someone from acting as he/she wishes) whether the motivation can be pointed to a religious belief or a secular moral belief should make no difference at all. So there is no valid reason for a "religious exemption" to a law. If the law must be followed by all, then the relgious must follow it as well. And if one should be able to do X because of their conscience, then it doesn't matter what the root of their belief is.

I do agree, but I think the language is important. Instead of trying to destroy the concept of religious exemption, you should rather to expand it to cover what you are making a distinction in.. namely "secular moral belief".
If it is "moral" it is the realm of religion. In this case, the religion of secularism.

I am not inclined to try or support any removal of religion from protection, because I see that a a slippery slope to acting as though secularism isn't itself a belief system that is equal to religion in all ways, and that it is rather some superior neutral thing that religion must bow to.

If the gov would do it's job, then we wouldn't have an issue. And frankly the gov shouldn't have the power to compel people to violate their moral convictions WHEN it doesn't directly violate the natural rights of other people.

so your murder example is not well suited to examining the issue. I am happy to discuss the ideas in terms of some issue that doesn't inherently violate another persons natural rights.

Like, maybe in terms of prostitution.
Should the gov have the power to prevent consenting adults from exchanging sex for money?

---edit--
It is important to note that I am coming from the position that the LAW has to justify itself above the actions of conscience.
So, when you appeal to murder, (and part of why I said there are a lot of assumptions tied into it) is that it isn't just a law for the sake of being a law.
It's justification is rooted in protecting a very clear right of all people.That isn't necessarily a shared assumption with some of these other cases we see dealing with this issue.
there is no comparable "right to another persons labor" or "right to another persons association".

-----
Edit .. edit
----
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...01891/download
Link of interest.

[mican333]

No I don't agree. There are too many assumptions you are making that matter.

How about this.
Would you agree that "following ones conscience" is the ONLY possible justification to JUSTLY disobeying laws?

So for example suppose there was a law that compelled you to murder.

I think if you can see that extreme, then we can make progress.

I agree that breaking such a law would be morally justifiable.

This is a problem of Gov over reach, and the law to protect religious liberty is a DIRECT limitation on that.

So what is the gov job, to protect rights, or to compel social actions? (Avoid playing in any perceived grey area here).

But again, if a law is an overreach, the correct solution is to not have that law at all. It's not to have the law but allow people to disobey it as long as they do it for religious reasons.

Again, the issue is "Religious EXEMPTIONS", which is about getting an exemption for religious reasons. I am against that.

If I'm for the law, then I say everyone should have to follow it regardless of their religious beliefs
If I'm against the law because it's a government overreach, then NO ONE should have to follow it and then it doesn't matter if your reasons for not obeying is religious or not.

I do agree, but I think the language is important. Instead of trying to destroy the concept of religious exemption, you should rather to expand it to cover what you are making a distinction in.. namely "secular moral belief".
If it is "moral" it is the realm of religion. In this case, the religion of secularism.

Well, the only just expansion of an exemption for an unjust law is to exempt EVERYONE and get rid of the law entirely.

If the law violates religious conscience to such an extent that the law should not have to be followed, then the only correct solution is to eliminate the law, not give certain people exemptions from it.

So in short, I'm saying either have the law with no exemptions or not have the law at all. But to have the law and allow ANY exemptions does not make much sense (in general, I'm sure there are some examples of justified exemptions like for handicapped people and such but there are certainly no valid exemptions for certain people to follow religious beliefs).

I am not inclined to try or support any removal of religion from protection, because I see that a a slippery slope to acting as though secularism isn't itself a belief system that is equal to religion in all ways, and that it is rather some superior neutral thing that religion must bow to.

If the gov would do it's job, then we wouldn't have an issue. And frankly the gov shouldn't have the power to compel people to violate their moral convictions WHEN it doesn't directly violate the natural rights of other people.

so your murder example is not well suited to examining the issue. I am happy to discuss the ideas in terms of some issue that doesn't inherently violate another persons natural rights.

Like, maybe in terms of prostitution.
Should the gov have the power to prevent consenting adults from exchanging sex for money?

But this all seems to not be addressing religious exemption. With the prostitution example, the two answers are:
1. Legalize prostitution and let people freely engage in it
2. Keep it illegal and prosecute those who engage in it

But I do not think that

3. Keep it illegal but give an exemption to people who engage in it for religious reasons.

And the same goes for all other laws.

Either enforce them for all or don't have them. But no exemptions if we are going to enforce it.

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

So can you give me an example of a valid religious/conscience exemption? As in we should have the law but certainly people should be exempt from prosecution if they break that law?

Because if feels more like you are arguing that laws that unjustly force people to violate their moral conscience should just not exist and that is not arguing for religious exemption. It is arguing for not having certain kinds of laws at all, which is quite different than what I've been arguing.

[MindTrap028]

I am actually with you on the concept that if a law violated justifiable religious exemptions then it is a law that shoild be done away with.

I think then religious exemptions are a result of a process that doesnt appreciate the power of a valid appeal to religious exemption.

-
Being on the same page there. If we applied it to say the draft. Then i can see where the other edge is.

Namely we allow for conciencious objectors. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt have a draft.

[CowboyX]

Depends on what you mean as "religious". which is my point.
I think their idea of religion included what some today now separate.

For the uneducated masses, yes, they saw religion as generally good guide. But for them and who they saw as who would be in power - with their private libraries and advanced educations - would be making the real decisions and they certainly would not be based on religion or religious doctrine. Which is why they set up a purely secular state.

[MindTrap028]

I dont see the relevance of your comment to the discussion. Nor do i recognize it as an obviously true comment. Seems more of a natrative you would like to push rather than something really part of the discussion.

[Sigfried]

I see the purpose of the first amendment as two-fold.
1. To protect religious expression and belief from persecution by the state (and to do so, protect the state from religious affiliation).
2. To ensure the people can express their political will and thus maintain the ability to alter the government.

On the whole, good stuff.

We have the expression "Your right to free expression ends at my face." or something like that.
The idea being, your rights don't let you trample on mine.

We don't have a right to commerce in the constitution, but there are laws that grant a right to commerce. Equal protection acts are such a right.
Now, if such rights conflict with a constitutional right, then the constitutional right wins out, that's what the constitution is for, to trump other laws and define the scope of government.

Is it a religious matter to treat other people poorly? Sure, it likely is to some degree.
Can you practice your religion without treating others poorly? I think you absolutely can.

When you consider the context of religious liberty as allowing religions to co-exist, and that religious animosity is most often aimed at other religious, then I think a restriction of your ability to do harm to your religious opponents is a reasonable one in the context of the first amendment. We maintain some semblance of peace by not having religions stomping on one another.

Religions institutions receive some special protections as organizations, and I think that is in keeping with the second amendment. Especially when it comes to their actual religious practices. A church that only holds catholic weddings can discriminate based on catholic practice.

But a non-religious business that practices in the secular world and caters to customers of the general public should have to abide by public rules of behavior and that includes laws passed to protect individuals from commercial discrimination.

The state has a right and obligation to protect its citizenry from religiously motivated (or any motivation really) discrimination that does pragmatic harm. And I think commercial exclusion is very pragmatic harm in a capitalist society. Especially when it is not actually destroying the person's ability to practice and maintain their religion.

That said. If someone wants to create a religion centered business that can meet the qualifications for a religious organiation then they can discriminate based on religious practices and beliefs.

---- For Ibelsd ----

Great post and argument. Mostly I agree.

I think there is a compelling state interest to do two things....
1. Ensure access to the public market for the broadest range of people possible
2. To limit religious discrimination between different groups to expressly religious institutions

[MindTrap028]

But a non-religious business that practices in the secular world and caters to customers of the general public should have to abide by public rules of behavior and that includes laws passed to protect individuals from commercial discrimination.

The link I provided, actually contradicts this. A person doesn't lay aside their religion in order to run a business.
laws past to gov business' are constitutionally bound to respect individual's running their business in according to their conscience.
So you have it backwards.

The state has a right and obligation to protect its citizenry from religiously motivated (or any motivation really) discrimination that does pragmatic harm.

What does "pragmatic harm" mean, and where is that idea come from? IE are you making it up to convey your position, or is it some legal standard?
Because the link I posted says the opposite almost. Namely that the state has the heaviest burden to show that it could not enforce a law in a way that doesn't violate the religious convictions of the person in question.


So, in way of support the link is a PDF, and harder to quote.
So section 14 has to do with the gov "Strict scrutiny of the RFRA is exceptionally demanding" section Is related to the second portion of my response.

And section 13 has to do with the first part of my response.

[mican333]

I am actually with you on the concept that if a law violated justifiable religious exemptions then it is a law that shoild be done away with.

I think then religious exemptions are a result of a process that doesnt appreciate the power of a valid appeal to religious exemption.

I disagree with that. I can't think of any attempts at religious exemption that were a valid appeal to unjust laws.

What first comes to mind when I think of religious exemption is Kim Davis refusing to grant a gay couple a marriage license despite the fact that gay marriages was legal and it was explicitly her job to grant them a license. She did not have a valid appeal - she just disagreed with the law and used RE as a way to not have to obey what was a just law.

Being on the same page there. If we applied it to say the draft. Then i can see where the other edge is.

Namely we allow for conciencious objectors. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt have a draft.

That's a very unique situation which doesn't really apply to the religious exemption controversy we are discussing.

[Sigfried]

The link I provided, actually contradicts this. A person doesn't lay aside their religion in order to run a business.
laws past to gov business' are constitutionally bound to respect individual's running their business in according to their conscience.
So you have it backwards.

A person doesn't put their religion aside in any circumstance. Not in the military, not in the government, not anywhere. But just because you want to punish the wicked doesn't mean you have leave to do so in society.

You don't get to run your public business to the detriment of others. If you want to sell in the public, you need to be obeying the rules of the public. If someone wants to discriminate and be a religious bigot, you can do that in private. But if you open the door to the public, then you have to play by the markets rules whatever your religion. If your religion precludes you from not being a bigot, then that is not everyone else's burden.

What does "pragmatic harm" mean, and where is that idea come from?

I mean harm other than hurt feelings or injured pride etc... I think that kind of thing is too difficult to adjudicate to be made into law and reasonably enforced. Baring participation from public commerce is pragmatic to demonstrate.

So, in way of support the link is a PDF, and harder to quote.
So section 14 has to do with the gov "Strict scrutiny of the RFRA is exceptionally demanding" section Is related to the second portion of my response.

And section 13 has to do with the first part of my response.

I highly doubt the government actually would hold to its own standard in this case. Should a religion decide tha cocaine is essential to their worship, there is no way the state is going to just shrug and say, well they say its critical to their faith, nothing we can do about it.

Here is a 2018 case for example.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/judge...b07b827cc30212

It's pretty much in blatant disregard of what you claim is the government's position on the law.
And what if one religion decides it simply doesn't want to employ people of another faith. A Christian decides no Jews can work at his public company. Will that fly? Not a chance in hell. Its going to get shot down lightning fast. Same if a Jewish owned company decided not to employ any Christians.

Why do we have such laws? To protect the right of commerce to religious people and to others as well. I don't give two hoots if your faith says its OK to discriminate like this and neither does the government.

[MindTrap028]

I disagree with that. I can't think of any attempts at religious exemption that were a valid appeal to unjust laws.

Well I understand the difficulty, because I think our nation is generally just, and because it is representative in nature, it doesn't often go to extremes that really contradict religious convictions.
However, it has happened.

Sacramental wine during prohibition.

While in a "secular" pov, it is just another product. It was and established and histories religious obligation.
Which made it the definition of "unjust" to those required by religion to take part.

What first comes to mind when I think of religious exemption is Kim Davis refusing to grant a gay couple a marriage license despite the fact that gay marriages was legal and it was explicitly her job to grant them a license. She did not have a valid appeal - she just disagreed with the law and used RE as a way to not have to obey what was a just law.

I offered a better example I think, and has you had trouble thinking of one, let me know if you hold that it was likewise invalid.
However, I would say that the proper action for the gov was to have another person issue the license rather than to compel her to violate her conscience. Its not as though she took the job knowing she would have to violate her conscience. Any other action is simply being intolerant and dictatorial towards her religious conviction, without need.
There were also other nuances in the case your pointing out. Specifically that it was still illegal in the state. So she was following state law, not federal law. So faulting some minion over the intricacies of state vs federal regulations... is not very reasonable.

What first comes to mind when I think of religious exemption is Kim Davis refusing to grant a gay couple a marriage license despite the fact that gay marriages was legal and it was explicitly her job to grant them a license. She did not have a valid appeal - she just disagreed with the law and used RE as a way to not have to obey what was a just law.

Absolutely it does.
Conscientious objectors is a thing. The draft is specifically to force people to support effort of killing others through direct actions that would violate the conscious of say... pacifists.

The power of the example is that it represents the gov greatest burden, which is to preserve the nation.. basally it's most compelling public interest.
That is why the draft itself is



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

A person doesn't put their religion aside in any circumstance. Not in the military, not in the government, not anywhere. But just because you want to punish the wicked doesn't mean you have leave to do so in society.

Punishing the wicked is not a synonym for religious conviction.

You don't get to run your public business to the detriment of others.

Who says? And what does that mean?
I mean some abortionist argue that the unborn are alive, and yet can be killed.
So abortion clinics entire business is a murder factory. Seems pretty detrimental to others.

If you want to sell in the public, you need to be obeying the rules of the public.

And the rules of the public are constitutionally obligated to respect the religion of the business owner/operator etc.

If someone wants to discriminate and be a religious bigot, you can do that in private. But if you open the door to the public, then you have to play by the markets rules whatever your religion. If your religion precludes you from not being a bigot, then that is not everyone else's burden.

This clearly violates the const as written and as laid how in the links.
You are fine to believe that, but it isn't correct.

I mean harm other than hurt feelings or injured pride etc... I think that kind of thing is too difficult to adjudicate to be made into law and reasonably enforced. Baring participation from public commerce is pragmatic to demonstrate.

What do you mean "baring from participating from public commerce"

I highly doubt the government actually would hold to its own standard in this case. Should a religion decide tha cocaine is essential to their worship, there is no way the state is going to just shrug and say, well they say its critical to their faith, nothing we can do about it.

Sure, but then the gov did that with alcohol too.
and in the end the problem was that the gov shouldn't have been making those kinds of laws to begin with.

And in the case of Cocaine, I would argue that the gov has no business the same way it had no business with beer.

I highly doubt the government actually would hold to its own standard in this case. Should a religion decide that cocaine is essential to their worship, there is no way the state is going to just shrug and say, well they say its critical to their faith, nothing we can do about it.

The gov can be inconsistent, especially in the courts
In this case the gov is acting contrary to its' past response to not just mildly similar, but exactly the same situation. (IE a controlled substance)

https://vinepair.com/articles/how-th...g-prohibition/

Basically, a law was made, and then the state backed off of applying it to the church specifically.

and actually the ruling sound unconst.

From your link
"Indiana’s police officers in the difficult position of having to evaluate the sincerity of a marijuana user’s religious faith."

That is specifically outside the powers of the gov. and my link from the justice department supports that.
So the judge was wrong in his reasoning and justification of his ruling.

[QUOOTE=SIG] It's pretty much in blatant disregard of what you claim is the government's position on the law.
And what if one religion decides it simply doesn't want to employ people of another faith. A Christian decides no Jews can work at his public company. Will that fly? Not a chance in hell. Its going to get shot down lightning fast. Same if a Jewish owned company decided not to employ any Christians. [/QUOTE]
Is ought fallacy.

Your just picking something that would happen and assuming it is consistent with the const and the meaning of it's expression.

Why do we have such laws? To protect the right of commerce to religious people and to others as well. I don't give two hoots if your faith says its OK to discriminate like this and neither does the government.

And there you have it, you don't actually respect others religions that you don't agree with, so they must bend to your wishes.
Which is not how the burden works.


----
right to commerce.

so the gov has the responsibility to protect the right of commerce, but it has a const obligation to execute that in the least intrusive way (see that link and quotes again).

So if the law was that an armed police officer had to be present at every buisness. If a person had religious convictions against deadly force, then the gov should station the guard outside, because that would still fulfill the law and also respect the religious conviction.

[mican333]

Well I understand the difficulty, because I think our nation is generally just, and because it is representative in nature, it doesn't often go to extremes that really contradict religious convictions.
However, it has happened.

Sacramental wine during prohibition.

While in a "secular" pov, it is just another product. It was and established and histories religious obligation.
Which made it the definition of "unjust" to those required by religion to take part.

I'd say it was "unjust" in general as in its not the government's business if an adult wants to drink alcohol.

But to be clear, I am referring to the modern controversy of "religious exemption". I'm not saying there was never a case where a law unjustly infringed on one's religious beliefs and one legitimately sought to not have to obey that law for that reason (but then, as I argue, NO ONE ELSE should be compelled to follow it either so the solution is not religious exemption but to just get rid to the law) but what i am saying is that such instances are not occurring today.

As far as I can tell, every attempt at religious exemption today is an attempt to not have to obey just laws because one doesn't want to (even if the reason they don't want to is because they feel that it goes against their religion to follow it.)

However, I would say that the proper action for the gov was to have another person issue the license rather than to compel her to violate her conscience. Its not as though she took the job knowing she would have to violate her conscience. Any other action is simply being intolerant and dictatorial towards her religious conviction, without need.
There were also other nuances in the case your pointing out. Specifically that it was still illegal in the state. So she was following state law, not federal law. So faulting some minion over the intricacies of state vs federal regulations... is not very reasonable.

First off federal law trump states law and she had a clear legal obligation to grant marriage licenses. There was absolutely no legal jurisdiction issue here.

And as I understand it, it was her decision to not the let the office grant marriage licenses. So yes, she could have stepped aside and let someone else take the counter and grant those marriage licenses but she chose to not let that happen either and refused to let her office grant marriage licenses (eventually granting NO marriage licenses to anyone to avoid granting them to same-sex couples). In her defense, it was mentioned that applicants could have just gone to a different office to get their licenses which clearly indicates that her office was refusing to grant them, not just her as the person at the counter.

So she was clearly in the wrong and was refusing to honor a legal and just law due to her personal beliefs.

Absolutely it does.
Conscientious objectors is a thing. The draft is specifically to force people to support effort of killing others through direct actions that would violate the conscious of say... pacifists.

But it's not a religious exemption. Anyone can apply for conscientious objector status regardless of their faith.

And as far as prohibition goes, the law was unjust and therefore there should be no religious exemption because there should not have been prohibition to begin with. I am referring to just laws.