Advertisement
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:41 am
Page wrote:Lerenzia wrote:Yes,oh well.What can you do? By your logic its also morally correct to accept a Neo nazi and a KKK member into your establishment simply because their just 'ideals'.
Nazis are enemies of society who inflict harm by their very nature. The same cannot be broadly said of religions as a whole like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:48 am
by Galloism » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:50 am
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:51 am
by Galloism » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:54 am
San Lumen wrote:Galloism wrote:San Lumen, then why did you deny on the basis of religion in your example?
Or are you reversing and now admitting you should be forced to make the cake with the burning cross design on it?
The KKK is not recognized a religious organization. I am not reversing course as I dont think being a Nazi or KKK member is a protected class.
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:55 am
Galloism wrote:San Lumen wrote:
The KKK is not recognized a religious organization. I am not reversing course as I dont think being a Nazi or KKK member is a protected class.
The KKK is a religious organization - church is literally in their name, and they have a dogma and creed, and have a nationalist streak based on specific religious fervor.
I suggest you lrn2history.
by San Lumen » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:56 am
Galloism wrote:San Lumen wrote:
The KKK is not recognized a religious organization. I am not reversing course as I dont think being a Nazi or KKK member is a protected class.
The KKK is a religious organization - church is literally in their name, and they have a dogma and creed, and have a nationalist streak based on specific religious fervor.
I suggest you lrn2history.
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:59 am
San Lumen wrote:Galloism wrote:The KKK is a religious organization - church is literally in their name, and they have a dogma and creed, and have a nationalist streak based on specific religious fervor.
I suggest you lrn2history.
They can call themself a church all they want its not recognized as a tax exempt organization. I dont think a Jewish or African American baker refusing to bake the burning cross cake would have see a judgement against them
by San Lumen » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:01 am
Telconi wrote:San Lumen wrote:They can call themself a church all they want its not recognized as a tax exempt organization. I dont think a Jewish or African American baker refusing to bake the burning cross cake would have see a judgement against them
And an Aryan baker wouldn't have been punished for refusing to service a jew in Nazi Germany...
Does that make it okay?
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:02 am
by Galloism » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:04 am
San Lumen wrote:Galloism wrote:San Lumen, then why did you deny on the basis of religion in your example?
Or are you reversing and now admitting you should be forced to make the cake with the burning cross design on it?
The KKK is not recognized a religious organization. I am not reversing course as I dont think being a Nazi or KKK member is a protected class.
An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.2002). The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:04 am
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:09 am
by Anarcho capitalist utopia » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:10 am
by Galloism » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:10 am
San Lumen wrote:So if a Orthodox Jew goes into a store or hotel in upstate New York with a kippah and they are anti Semitic oh well?
by Telconi » Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:11 am
Users browsing this forum: A Herd of Cows, Cerula, Elwher, Hidrandia, New Temecula, Niolia, Omphalos, So uh lab here, Statesburg, Tinhampton