Impications of the Hobby Lobby ruling (America's NEW legal System)
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
dannyboy602
Well-Known Member
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
First of the month. This is when all the cheap liquor is totally sold out.
srh88
Well-Known Member
and cheap smokes too lol
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
US Religious Law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21C
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
"It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition).
Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb– 2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc– 3(g)."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21C
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
"It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition).
Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb– 2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc– 3(g)."
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Seriously Fin. Just a couple of lines about what this means would be great. Nobody is going to read that unless you give them cause to. Come on Fin, show some growth and don't just clog our info stream with cut and paste.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
The first one is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, here is what to know from that:
They can only burden a Religion only if they can prove that "the burden is in furtherance of a compelling Governmental interest" and "The least restrictive means of achieving that compelling Governmental interest".
The Second one is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, here is what to know from that:
Exercise of Religion, includes "Any exercise of Religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of Religious belief"
and Burwell V Hobby Lobby is the most recent interpretation of these.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And the test to see if they are burdening Religion is Sherbert V Verner, which states:
"If a Government confronts an individual with the decision of either foregoing a religious practice or punishment, whether that be actual punishment or a withheld benefit, then the Government has burdened Religious exercise"
"If a Government confronts an individual with the decision of either foregoing a religious practice or punishment, whether that be actual punishment or a withheld benefit, then the Government has burdened Religious exercise"
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Ok, but there is a lot of wiggle room in them words as there always is. How does this relate to us insofar as our personal freedoms? What has changed? Can we grow weed yet or not?
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
And can I call my lack of religion a religion in and of itself?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Yes. Atheism does qualify as a Religion in court. If you want I can find the court case about it. I am pretty sure it was a case where an Atheist organization wasn't paying taxes, and they argued that they are a religious organization so they don't have to, and they won.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Then there is also Ballard V United States. It wasn't an Atheist, but it was someone who believed that he was the reincarnation of George Washington and Alexander the Great or something, and like 8 other people he was supposedly reincarnations of. And he got people to send him money to start the "I AM" movement. After he died the FBI opened an investigation saying that he had committed mail fraud, but the Supreme Court said that the court has no right to question the validity of someone's beliefs and that if they believe themselves to be the reincarnation of 8 people and that dictates their religious beliefs, then that is what they believe.
A quote from the case goes something like:
"A man may believe what he can not prove"
A quote from the case goes something like:
"A man may believe what he can not prove"
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
A nice side benefit. Do I need to affirm myself as an athiest with some athiest organization? I just consider it a sensible worldview and growing marijuana is not part of any ritual connected to my religious beliefs. I just like to smoke weed. I am a mellow sort of gal.
So am I fucked? I will bet that I am. Dammit.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
George has not posted here in a while. Thank George.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
No, I forget the exact case, but there was a case where a woman was saying that she wanted Sundays off of work because it was her Religion, or maybe she was a 7th Day Adventist and it was Saturday. And the other side argued that she did not attend a church, so could not claim 1st Amendment protection, and the Supreme Court ruled that you do not need to be responding to the orders of a hierarchical organization to get 1st Amendment protection.
And there was another one where 2 Jahovah's witnesses had different beliefs, and the court ruled that beliefs "Need not be consistent, comprehensible, acceptable... to others in order to merit 1st Amendment protection".
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Also, look at Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It was written after WWII and are the Human Rights everyone talks about different countries violating. Article 18 is Religion:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
But the core issue was that whatever day she wanted off was because of religious reasons. How can I tie my weed into my atheism? I mean without faking. Faking it is the whole reason I don't have a religion in the first place.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
The Eloquent Peasant
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B69pjF_qsNMrUzhkUjhMTlpMSXc/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B69pjF_qsNMrUzhkUjhMTlpMSXc/view?usp=sharing
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
You would just say that it the only way you feel you can Exercise your Religion. Title 42 Chapter 21C of the US Code defines Religious Exercise, as:
"Any Exercise of Religion, whether or not compelled by, or Central to, a system of Religious belief."