US Constitution first amendment

[wmw999 2,134]

Free exercise of religion part. I realize this is a Supreme Court kind of question, but hey -- we wear clothes too, so we're qualified to opine, right ?

Where did the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion end and the rights of other people to live their lives unimpeded begin? Some Native Americans with traditional practices requiring the use of otherwise illegal drugs can do so in the exercise of their faith. No one is required to marry or even have anyone in their church that they object to. Now there might be disapproval, but that's not legal sanction.

But someone who claims to practice an ancient Mayan religion that requires human sacrifice, that probably wouldn't fly. Someone who claims jihadism as a defense for shooting up a school probably wouldn't get very far. Likewise a Christian shooting up an abortion clinic.

But those are extreme. How about the grey areas, like someone who belongs to a white supremacist church and who also is a mechanic -- can they refuse customers who are minorities? Can a strict Paulian principal of a public school refuse to hire female teachers for boys past puberty? Or to hire a Muslim teacher at all?

Yes, of course the point is eventually talk about the current situation with some Christans and tolerance of homosexuality. But maybe if we work around to it, instead of people beating each other about the head and shoulders with dogma, there might be some actual discussion.

One can always dream
Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[RonD1120 58]

wmw999

Free exercise of religion part. I realize this is a Supreme Court kind of question, but hey -- we wear clothes too, so we're qualified to opine, right ?

Where did the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion end and the rights of other people to live their lives unimpeded begin? Some Native Americans with traditional practices requiring the use of otherwise illegal drugs can do so in the exercise of their faith. No one is required to marry or even have anyone in their church that they object to. Now there might be disapproval, but that's not legal sanction.

But someone who claims to practice an ancient Mayan religion that requires human sacrifice, that probably wouldn't fly. Someone who claims jihadism as a defense for shooting up a school probably wouldn't get very far. Likewise a Christian shooting up an abortion clinic.

But those are extreme. How about the grey areas, like someone who belongs to a white supremacist church and who also is a mechanic -- can they refuse customers who are minorities? Can a strict Paulian principal of a public school refuse to hire female teachers for boys past puberty? Or to hire a Muslim teacher at all?

Yes, of course the point is eventually talk about the current situation with some Christans and tolerance of homosexuality. But maybe if we work around to it, instead of people beating each other about the head and shoulders with dogma, there might be some actual discussion.

One can always dream
Wendy P.

I agree. The federal government should not be making those rulings on businesses or schools. Let the states handle those disputes. But, you know how I am.

There was a movement during the late '60s early '70s to allow LSD for religious practices. If the Native Americans could use peyote some should be able to use acid. Literally a pipe dream.

The Rainbows started about the same time with the basic philosophical ideology that their members were outside the rules of government. They would take care of their own.

I remember in the late '70s they camped in the Pecos Wilderness and supposedly were trying to formulate a proposition for NM to secede from the U.S. and be governed by the Rainbows. I don't think they could find pen, paper and a postage stamp.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,635]

RonD1120

***Free exercise of religion part. I realize this is a Supreme Court kind of question, but hey -- we wear clothes too, so we're qualified to opine, right ?

Where did the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion end and the rights of other people to live their lives unimpeded begin? Some Native Americans with traditional practices requiring the use of otherwise illegal drugs can do so in the exercise of their faith. No one is required to marry or even have anyone in their church that they object to. Now there might be disapproval, but that's not legal sanction.

But someone who claims to practice an ancient Mayan religion that requires human sacrifice, that probably wouldn't fly. Someone who claims jihadism as a defense for shooting up a school probably wouldn't get very far. Likewise a Christian shooting up an abortion clinic.

But those are extreme. How about the grey areas, like someone who belongs to a white supremacist church and who also is a mechanic -- can they refuse customers who are minorities? Can a strict Paulian principal of a public school refuse to hire female teachers for boys past puberty? Or to hire a Muslim teacher at all?

Yes, of course the point is eventually talk about the current situation with some Christans and tolerance of homosexuality. But maybe if we work around to it, instead of people beating each other about the head and shoulders with dogma, there might be some actual discussion.

One can always dream
Wendy P.

I agree. The federal government should not be making those rulings on businesses or schools. Let the states handle those disputes.

What business is it of the states, or any government entity?

Quote

But, you know how I am.

Yes, we do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

The federal government should not be making those rulings on businesses or schools. Let the states handle those disputes.

You mean, like the states handled who could and who could not vote?

Many states still have provisions in their constitution that run directly counter to the Federal Constitution. Georgia, for example, still has a provision (not enforced these days, that I know of) that bars people who do not belong to a church from holding elected office or any state-funded position of "significant responsibility". This is clearly unconstitutional in light of the first amendment. Surely basic civil rights should apply equally to all, and not be contingent on where you happen to live?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[RonD1120 58]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

The federal government should not be making those rulings on businesses or schools. Let the states handle those disputes.

You mean, like the states handled who could and who could not vote?

Many states still have provisions in their constitution that run directly counter to the Federal Constitution. Georgia, for example, still has a provision (not enforced these days, that I know of) that bars people who do not belong to a church from holding elected office or any state-funded position of "significant responsibility". This is clearly unconstitutional in light of the first amendment. Surely basic civil rights should apply equally to all, and not be contingent on where you happen to live?

Don

If the state is not enforcing the provision, then the state is handling it.

Civil rights are a factor of cultural relativity.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

If the state is not enforcing the provision, then the state is handling it.

Yes and no. They could choose to enforce it at any time. It could be removed; that it remains says something about the attitude of the state legislature. I do not trust states to respect the civil rights of any minority or "out of the mainstream" groups, without the threat of federal action.

Quote

Civil rights are a factor of cultural relativity.

That sounds like an excuse to deny people their civil rights. An excellent example would be "separate but equal".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[gowlerk 1,916]

Quote

Civil rights are a factor of cultural relativity.

Although this is so poorly worded that it is difficult to decipher, think I know what you are saying. And judging by the normally higher quality of your other writings, I'm assuming that the ambiguity is deliberate.

Civil rights are indeed always evolving with society and culture. From emancipation, to voting rights, abortion rights and lately marriage rights, the trend in Western countries is more rights for more people.

It is my feeling that expansion of rights so far has always been a positive thing, and never a negative. Are there exceptions I'm forgetting?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Your "grey areas" aren't all that grey to me.

For example:

The mechanic can pick and choose who he works on. As long as he is the "Church Mechanic". That is, he offers his services only to members of his church. As soon as he hangs a sign up, obtains a business license and is "open to the public" then he's legally obligated to follow the law as far as discrimination goes. He can choose to refuse to work for any specific person, or refuse to work on any specific car. But if he decides to discriminate against people based on their race, then it's discrimination (same as baking cakes).

The principal of a public school is required to follow the law regarding discrimination too. If he can't hire females to teach males, or any Muslim, then he shouldn't be a principal (at least not of a public school).

And until suicide becomes legal (and not just in cases of people who are terminally ill and choosing to end their life before it gets nasty), human sacrifice won't fly.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

For any government entity: equal rights for all with no "group" , including couples receiving any special treatment.

Any business or it's subsidiaries choosing to do business with any government entity or accept any government funding is required to the same.

Beyond that, no discrimination restrictions. Let publicity and capitalism deal with them.

Ex: Jorge can run a restuarant that does not serve white people if he chooses. His business would not be eligible for a government backed small business loan/grant nor would he be allowed to cater a local government function. Government employees would be allowed to eat there but only on their personal time with personal funds. Business meals could not be expensed there.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[gowlerk 1,916]

Quote

Ex: Jorge can run a restuarant that does not serve white people if he chooses. His business would not be eligible for a government backed small business loan/grant nor would he be allowed to cater a local government function. Government employees would be allowed to eat there but only on their personal time with personal funds. Business meals could not be expensed there.

This was long ago rejected. The problem was that "Jorge" was in reality most restaurants in the segregated USA. And it was never the majority that got screwed over, it was always those with little or no power.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Bolas

...Beyond that, no discrimination restrictions. Let publicity and capitalism deal with them...

I take it you've never been in a situation where you are part of a minority group that is being discriminated against.

Housing and employment are two areas where what you suggest doesn't work.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[turtlespeed 212]

Bolas

For any government entity: equal rights for all with no "group" , including couples receiving any special treatment.

Any business or it's subsidiaries choosing to do business with any government entity or accept any government funding is required to the same.

Beyond that, no discrimination restrictions. Let publicity and capitalism deal with them.

Ex: Jorge can run a restuarant that does not serve white people if he chooses. His business would not be eligible for a government backed small business loan/grant nor would he be allowed to cater a local government function. Government employees would be allowed to eat there but only on their personal time with personal funds. Business meals could not be expensed there.

There too many holes in that. Never mind the morals or ethics, there would be no way to absolutely enforce these restrictions.

You'd have to run a background check every time you wanted to eat somewhere new.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bolas 5]

turtlespeed

***For any government entity: equal rights for all with no "group" , including couples receiving any special treatment.

Any business or it's subsidiaries choosing to do business with any government entity or accept any government funding is required to the same.

Beyond that, no discrimination restrictions. Let publicity and capitalism deal with them.

Ex: Jorge can run a restuarant that does not serve white people if he chooses. His business would not be eligible for a government backed small business loan/grant nor would he be allowed to cater a local government function. Government employees would be allowed to eat there but only on their personal time with personal funds. Business meals could not be expensed there.

There too many holes in that. Never mind the morals or ethics, there would be no way to absolutely enforce these restrictions.

You'd have to run a background check every time you wanted to eat somewhere new.

Maybe back when Civil Rights was passed, but now it would be no longer be a big issue. The "racist/sexist/homophobic companies" would be well known to all and would be far less than people would think and likely would change or close quickly under the pressure, similar to what happened to that Oregon wedding cake bakery even before the government stepped in.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

***

...Beyond that, no discrimination restrictions. Let publicity and capitalism deal with them...

I take it you've never been in a situation where you are part of a minority group that is being discriminated against.

Housing and employment are two areas where what you suggest doesn't work.

Housing is not an issue as very little housing, particularly for poorer people (the ones without the power) is not in some way government subsidized/backed.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[gowlerk 1,916]

Quote

Housing is not an issue as very little housing, particularly for poorer people (the ones without the power) is not in some way government subsidized/backed.

Care to back that up? All I can find is ths:

More than 1.2 million households currently live in public housing of some type

And this:

In 2009, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty


Also, it completely overlooks the fact that just because you are not poor does not mean you can't be discriminated against.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Bolas

Maybe back when Civil Rights was passed, but now it would be no longer be a big issue. The "racist/sexist/homophobic companies" would be well known to all and would be far less than people would think and likely would change or close quickly under the pressure, similar to what happened to that Oregon wedding cake bakery even before the government stepped in.

Well, the Oregon bakery is a good example of what you say.

But Denny's is a pretty good example the other way. Very little public outcry, very little condemnation. Lots of claims of racism. Even fairly recently (last five years or so).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

***
Maybe back when Civil Rights was passed, but now it would be no longer be a big issue. The "racist/sexist/homophobic companies" would be well known to all and would be far less than people would think and likely would change or close quickly under the pressure, similar to what happened to that Oregon wedding cake bakery even before the government stepped in.

Well, the Oregon bakery is a good example of what you say.

But Denny's is a pretty good example the other way. Very little public outcry, very little condemnation. Lots of claims of racism. Even fairly recently (last five years or so).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny%27s#Discrimination_controversies

Almost 20 years ago...

Quote

After the $54.4 million settlement, Denny's created a racial sensitivity training program for all employees. Denny's has also made efforts at improving its public relations image by featuring African-Americans in their commercials, including one featuring Sherman Hemsley and Isabel Sanford, both actors from the popular The Jeffersons television series.[26][27] In 2001, Denny's was chosen by Fortune magazine as the "Best Company for Minorities."[28][29] In 2006 and 2007, Denny's topped Black Enterprise's "Best 40 Companies for Diversity."[30]

Then one incident which they appropriately handled.

Quote

In 2014, a Denny's location in Deming, New Mexico became subjected to a discrimination claim by an LGBT group, alleging that wait staff used homophobic slurs and refused to serve a group of gay, lesbian and transgender customers who were attending a gay pride celebration. One year later, Denny's agreed to donate $13,000 to Deming Pride, pay $3,250 to a female customer who was subjected to the abusive behavior by wait staff, as well as retrain employees regarding discrimination policies.[31]

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

There have been more than just that one LBGT incident. Several where black people were made to pay in advance.

HERE is one. There are more if you search.

Again, it doesn't make headlines. But that doesn't mean it never happens.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

There have been more than just that one LBGT incident. Several where black people were made to pay in advance.

HERE is one. There are more if you search.

Again, it doesn't make headlines. But that doesn't mean it never happens.

Quote

Attorney Michael Stein, who represents Denny's and Rahman, said the manager made a mistake with his demand, apologized to the couple and offered to return the $80 Williams gave him.

He said Rahman was concerned after learning from the couple's server about the size of their order, which totaled more than $83, because the Koreatown location had prior problems with people leaving without paying.

Would need to know more but from that description doesn't sound racist.

An $80+ Denny's bill for two people?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,257]

But this description does.

"Sax said he saw a similar prepayment demand made of a black customer by a server in the same restaurant about two to three weeks later...

Williams said the couple was so bothered by Rahman coming back to the table so often, he asked the server to box their food and they took it with them."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

jakee

But this description does.

"Sax said he saw a similar prepayment demand made of a black customer by a server in the same restaurant about two to three weeks later...

Williams said the couple was so bothered by Rahman coming back to the table so often, he asked the server to box their food and they took it with them."

What was the check amount?

Was the restuarant having issues with 1-2 people parties running up large checks and then leaving without paying? Were there certain similarities in the dine and dashers?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

But this description does.

"Sax said he saw a similar prepayment demand made of a black customer by a server in the same restaurant about two to three weeks later...

Williams said the couple was so bothered by Rahman coming back to the table so often, he asked the server to box their food and they took it with them."

Was he documenting every one that had to pre pay - or jus the one tat makes it seem HS story has legitimacy?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

I'm with Bolas in the philosophy of it.

In practice - it really is a question of whether we've reached that point enough to let it work - isolated anecdotes are crappy examples pro or con to it though. philosophy is one thing. Application is everything.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

Hi joe,

Quote

But Denny's is a pretty good example the other way.

Back in the 50's there was a chain of restaurants here on the west coast called 'Li'l Black Sambos.' Then they changed their name to 'Sambos.' Then Denny's bought them & changed it to 'Denny's.'

Jerry Baumchen

[Bolas 5]

rehmwa

I'm with Bolas in the philosophy of it.

In practice - it really is a question of whether we've reached that point enough to let it work - isolated anecdotes are crappy examples pro or con to it though. philosophy is one thing. Application is everything.

Considering the rise of micro aggressions and trigger warnings on college campuses we're past the point.

In reality, racism basically died long ago, what we have today is mostly classism.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.