May be a GQ or a GD but as things tend towards debate here . . .
We all know that there are blue laws in various states that restrict certain activities on Sundays and that these laws have a religious (viz. Christian) background.
Isn’t this a violation of the separation of church and state?
Am I being discriminated against (legally or in actuality) if I am an Orthodox Jew because now there are certain activities like buying alcohol or a car or mowing my lawn that I cannot do over the weekend because my religious faith precludes it on Saturday and The Man precludes it on Sunday?
No, they do not prevent you from practicing your religion, or establish a religion. If they applied only to people of a certain religion, then you would have a case. Laws against murder and theft have a basis in religion but are consitutional. The origins of the law are not important as long as there is a secular purpose that is served and they do not discriminate among religions.
Yes. However, like ceremonial deism, the courts have mostly agreed that blue laws are okay if there’s a valid secular basis for having them. This is highly specious reasoning, but there you have it.
No, although I’d be very surprised to discover that a prohibition on lawn mowing on Sundays was held to be enforceable.
If you claim they do not discriminate, please consider the response to the suggestion that the day businesses are closed is changed from Sunday to Saturday.
Also, please give the secular purpose for them, remembering that if a day off is required, it can be any day, not just Sunday.
Why would states need any reason to have a particular law if it is not unconstitutional? I imagine a state could choose any day it wants to close businesses without any particular reason.
Doing something for no particular reason is not discriminatory, doing it for certain reasons is. For example, if a town makes a law that no buildings can be painted red just because, it is not a problem. If they do it because Religion X requires its houses of worship to be red, then it is discrimination. Requiring all businesses to close during the hours of a certain faiths worship is just as much a government endorsement of religion as diverting public funds to the church.
No, religion has a basis in societies’ opposition to theft and murder. It’s not like people thought it was good to take each other’s stuff and kill each other until they invented God or Vishnu. Religion is about what kind of hat you can wear, what foods you eat, and other trivia. That’s why some religions say you have to cut your hair, others prohibit it, and yet others make you cover it. But they all are opposed to theft and murder.
There is a clear religious reason for the laws, and I suspect an examination of the legislative record for them would show this. They were all enacted before people were too concerned about covering their tracks.
Deciding to force businesses to close for a day is arguable, but not a First Amendment issue. Forcing them to close on the day of rest of one religion but not others is a first amendment issue, since it establishes one religions Sabbath as the official one, and places adherents of other religions at a disadvantage.
I see your point but I still don’t really see the problem. Doesn’t having a federal holiday for Christmas impact those of other religions? The Jews and Muslims can’t go to the DMV that day. Also, there are many laws based on Christianity…adultery being but one. Doesn’t this affect the Muslims and Mormons more than Christians?
Yeah, can anybody point to specific blue laws that are actually in place and enforced? The only ones I can think of are certain states’ laws against buying alcohol on Sunday. And I believe those laws should be repealed on first amendment grounds. But laws against washing your horse in the street on Sunday and carrying around ice cream cones in your pockets or whatever, those aren’t enforced, right? I do think there are still plenty of religiously motivated laws on the books, but none so blatant as “it’s illegal to do X on Sunday”, except the aforementioned alcohol prohibitions.
Seems as though there’s a big inertia factor involved in what’s constitutional and what’s not. For example, here in Virginia, our (state run, until our superhero gov changes it) ABC stores used to be closed on Sundays - just recently opening, under skinnier hours. Why? Obviously it is in reference to some religious observation, at one point. It is maintained now, because… why?
Same with banks - my BB&T branches are open on Saturdays, not on Sundays. Since they are private industry I guess they figure that their clients don’t want to bank on Sundays, so they conform to their market’s desires. I’d guess there’s a difference between private and public establishments, constitutionally speaking, though.
If a DMV has Sat but not Sun hours, they too are acting more like a private industry; tailoring their hours to what they perceive their market (ie, drivers) would want them to do (Saturday hours are for convenience, Sunday is for churchin’, you godless heathen… ). With government trying to become more citizen-centric (*especially under this administration), that doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Edit to add: When I went to school in Harrisonburg, they had blue laws almost up until I graduated in 1991. The mall was closed, small shops closed. About the only things open were supermarkets and some (but not all) restaurants. Big Mennonite population there.
Don’t you think there is a difference between government offices closing and forcing private businesses to close? Around here, no one is forced to close even on Christmas. Last year we played Jewish and went to a Chinese restaurant.
And, ahem Christians didn’t invent the ten commandments. In any case, aren’t any laws there might have been forbidding it now repealed (or at least unenforced.) So, bad example, since laws against adultery are even stupider than Blue Laws. How would you feel about a law against spilling your seed on the ground?
Boy, you’re an optimist. What would really happen is that they’d pass a renewal of the entire law book in about five minutes, on a voice vote. Then they’d get to important matters, like naming a state bug.
Not to the observer (i.e. the affected person). Maybe other religions need to go to the DMV on Christmas just like you need to buy beer on Sunday. By your argument I would think closing government offices would be more offensive since it is the government observing a religious holiday of one religion but not another.
Laws can be stupid and still constitutional. Adultery is still on the books in many states though, yes, it is not enforced (as far as I know). This is not the same thing as being ruled unconstitutional.
None of this is to imply that I agree with Blue Laws…I don’t. I just don’t see how they could be interpreted as unconstitutional. It is not the establishment of a religion.
