|
Real0ne -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 7:05:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
In the throes of chemo brain, I forgot to post a link. Sigh.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/muslim-flight-attendant-sues-expressjet-serve-alcohol
I doubt there are simple answers for any of this, but I know that tends to be a minority position on Collarchat. [:)
Lets start by clearing this up for me. Arent you the guy that once upon a time disclosed that you are a practicing attorney? I'd be curious to know which flavor of law(s). The problem is that you have to be a bit gaurded in what you say, and on the other hand no attorney can pass the bar without a fundamental understanding of contract law.
I disagree, the answers and solutions are frankly extremely simple.
Lets start here: The constitution [fed and or state(s)] are contract agreement(s) between those who would govern and the consenting governed.
That said, if in fact the people are the consenting party A and the government the consenting party B, and the government has not defacto imposed itself upon the people under the laws of conquest or some other bullshit british laws, (like stealth feudalism) then the consent of the people stands as a reserved right, under the reserved rights doctrine same as the indian treaties.
That said the people were willing to agree and gave their consent that the government can exist and operate only if the government does not trespass on the rights we reserve strictly and solely to our individual selves, ie: speech, religion, arms etc.
If in fact you are really an attorney no more need be said, however for those who do not understand contract law 101, it works the same way as if party C agreed to allow your pets to go 'dodo' on their property 'period'.
So answer this: Does party C have any jurisdiction or authority under the contract to interfere with or regulate yoru pets going dodo on their property?
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
This story caught my eye, because it illustrates the complexities of "religious freedom":
Religious freedom is incredibly simple.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
-- Does it apply to minority religions (the flight attendant) as well as the majority one (the Christian baker)?
You have the right to put into action therefore exercise your religion. Reserved rights run outside the constitution, commercial law is subject to the constitution and laws of (equity [for the most part]).
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
-- How much weight should we assign to the gravity of the moral objection? Is refusing to serve alcohol on a plane the same as declining to perform an abortion?
100% weight
in the sense they are both part of a persons moral compass 'yes'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
-- Does it matter how feasible it is for the customer to get his or her needs addressed elsewhere? Is the next bakery two blocks away, or is it a 50-mile drive to another pharmacy for one's birth control pills?
No with the exception to an emergency, or impending danger or health hazard. Where the bakery is located is irrelevant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
-- Does it matter whether the would-be conscientious objector is an employee or owns the business? Does the airline's right to please its passengers trump the flight attendant's religious freedom? How does one factor in other employees whose work may become more challenging as a result of a religious accommodation to a colleague?
No it does not matter, again in the sense that each case a moral decision is made and acted upon, which is their religion.
No, commerce [is a gubmint regulated activity], your moral compass is not unless the gubmint has established a religion and regulates your moral compass for you.
The airline has no right to please its customers above your moral convictions UNLESS you agree to terms and conditions of a contract with the airline.
Other employees also have both right to respect your religion as much as you have a right and obligation to respect their religion and moral compass.
It is a requirement of a functioning society.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
-- What, if any, weight should we accord to legal precedents curtailing the rights of religion (e.g., Mormons and polygamy, Native Americans and peyote, etc.)?
The gubblemint established itself as a religion when it forced the mormons to obey the gubblemint religion. Same with the natives, most laws today violate our reserved rights because they are moral based, and positively codified, (as opposed to non-codified common law and left to a jury) and all part of the standing US established religion.
The gubbkemint came in and said ok mormons fuck your religion, from now on its our religion or we will send our thugs after you and throw your asses in jail and take all your property, read my lips "1 wife only" our religion only. clear?
in addtiion feel free to see if you can come up with a problem that is 'not' simple resoved
|
|
|
|
