I do think it’s a bit strange that people don’t see the inherent due process issue in a decision maker expressing outward hostility towards you. If you went in front of a judge and they insulted you while making a decision against you, you’d likely scream up and down that your due process rights were violated. We at least attempt the legal fiction that the person making the ruling attempts to be non-biased in making that decision. That wasn’t the case here, as the CRCC was openly biased.
The CCRC’s comments were a big reason I thought this case was a very flawed case to deal with public accommodations being denied on the basis of sexual orientation. The flowers case is likely better.
I doubt the SCOTUS will proclaim Christianity not a religion but where is the line drawn? Does Scientology count as a religion for these purposes? The Church of Satan?
It gets worse though. There are a myriad number of christian denominations. Some interpret the bible differently than other denominations. Do all denominations count or just some of them? How old do they have to be to count? Do all interpretations count or does the court need to assume if the bible says it then it can be a closely held belief? So, for example, can you discriminate against someone who is wearing two different kinds of material because the bible has an injunction against that?
Further, how do we determine if your belief is truly closely held? Can we look at your church and decide if it advocates discriminating against (say) gay people or if you go to a church that is more inclusive is that off the table for you? Or do you just have to assert it is a closely held belief and that is enough? Meaning discrimination of any kind is allowable as long as the person doing it says the magic words, “This is a closely held religious belief of mine.”
Well, if you think the Supreme Court is abusing its power in determining what is or is not a true religion in order to deal with free exercise cases, who is going to stop them? I can’t see people actually agreeing on a Constitutional Amendment dealing with the issue.
Not sure I would characterize it as abuse. I am suggesting that the court, if they continue down this religious freedom road, is opening a major can of worms.
Can you explain this? Even if you think there’s some wiggle room in interpreting the scriptural verses, it’s hard to dispute that the interpretation in opposition to homosexuality and the exclusivity of marriage to heterosexual unions is at least eighteen hundred years old, as per the Talmud. If that ain’t traditional, I don’t know what possibly could be.
One of the concurring opinions, Gorsuch’s (on page 11), mentioned a prior case that touched on the individuality of belief. The case involved a person who worked in a steel mill who objected on his pacifist religious grounds to working on a production line making tank turrets but had no problem working on producing sheet metal which might make its way into weapon production.
The relevant section of the Gorsuch concurrence reads:
And the court’s prior ruling was essentially that a person could determine where the boundaries of their own personal belief lay. The court is not going to dissect such a belief and decide it is right or wrong, or if it is a requirement of a particular denomination. The court will only look at whether the belief is sincerely held, even if imperfectly so. A professed Jew can still claim a religious exemption to wear a kippah even if you once saw him eating a bacon cheeseburger.
That Leviticus stuff again? Who ever acted as if they believed all of it?
There are many other religions with very different views on the subject, as you may know. In most cases, it just didn’t come up much until it was necessary to confront views. Those who have come to accept it include many, many of the nominally religious, even of faiths who include Leviticus in their scriptures.
I think you mean “sincerely held,” right? The phrase “closely held” was in the news a couple of years ago in the Hobby Lobby case, but it wasn’t the religious views that were closely held, it was the corporation was closely held by its owners, meaning they didn’t sell shares of the corporation, they kept the ownership to themselves.
It’s not really a “win” for anyone if you look closely at the decision. No right to discriminate has been found, all they decided was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission doesn’t know how to give religious people a fair hearing. Because most such commissions are stacked with activists, not legal minds.
The organization you are referring to wins mainly because they select egregrious cases where people’s rights are pretty obviously trampled upon. Many liberals have decided that group identity rights trump constitutional rights. They do not. They are very important, but the Bill of Rights is supreme over all other considerations.
Fine; " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Exercise of religion doesn’t just involve what you do in a house of worship out of the public eye. It means public displays of religion are permitted as well.
I would find this response more convincing or at least thought provoking if free exercise of religion were either a brand new constitutional law concept, or had previously been defined to include only religious exercise which didn’t and couldn’t ever impact anyone else in any conceivable way (so IOW was basically meaningless in terms of public policy). But neither is true.
Instead it’s a principal going back to the beginning in US Constitutional law. So I can see saying ‘well, maybe it’s time we change/abolish the concept of free exercise of religion, or limit it to where it’s meaningless (to where no one else could ever possibly claim it impacted them in any way whatsoever)’. Not agree necessarily, but that’s people expressing something I believe they actually think.
OTOH the argument that supposes this ‘new’ concept of courts defining what is religious belief is unworkable somehow, is just bogus IMO and probably not what thinking people really think. It’s obviously not unworkable because it’s been the concept for two centuries. Courts have decided what constitutes religious belief, the beliefs of major faiths deeply embedded in cultures, and have not suddenly ruled in or out huge numbers of people’s beliefs. The disagreements what’s really a religious belief have always been at the margin. In fact IMO hardly anybody hoping for a decisive decision against the baker really thinks his wasn’t a religious belief. I have trouble taking seriously the argument ‘it’s impossible to reasonably define religious belief’. It’s obviously possible.
Then a lot of your argument extends to supposing that freedom of exercise of religion would trump every other right. That’s not what the court said at all. They dodged saying whether the baker’s right to free exercise of religion outweighed the couple’s right to be served by a business presenting itself as catering to the public. All they said, as I see it, is that it was inappropriate for the CO commissioners, representing state power, to pretend there’s no well defined concept of freedom of exercise of religion, and ask phony questions (‘what if your religion was Nazism?’ etc) to display their contempt for both the concept and for religion. That’s all the decision says as I see it.
Jews did, provably as far back as Roman times, and certainly earlier, though just how far back is impossible to prove. Maybe not all of Jewry at all times, but certainly the Roman-era subgroup known as the Pharisees, who gave rise to the Talmudic Jewry that was the only Jewry until the 19th century, and since then, those who are called Orthodox.
Christians, as far as I know, had since the dawn of their religion, maintained a belief in all of it, but also in an additional set of scriptures which overrules it in places. I will admit to not being as certain of this as I am of the Jewish answer above.
But the post in question, in which you question “how traditional it is” refers specifically to Judaism and Christianity.
“It didn’t come up much” only in the sense that in the absence of secular states with gay-rights movements for centuries, the sinfulness of homosexuality wasn’t a controversial opinion. It certainly came up that homosexual sex was on the books as illegal in most, if not all, predominantly Christian jurisdictions.
Yes, but this shift of viewpoint is of recent vintage - the intolerance of homosexuality in Judaism and Christianity is certainly traditional, by any meaningful sense of the word “tradition.”
Yeah, the exercise thereof is “worship”. Who is stopping them from doing so? They can pray to their god any time, any place. Nobody will bother them in the slightest. It is only when you wish to impose your religion upon others that there becomes a problem. You have a right to exercise your religion, but you don’t have a right to involve me in it. Why do your rights to discriminate against me because of your religion trump my rights to not be discriminated against because of your religion?
I assume that you do not think that this is an absolute right, correct? That if I have sincerely held Aztec beliefs, that I cannot sacrifice even a willing human participant.