Judicial Repeal of the 1st Amendment?

[cssml]

That final line,  "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms" is insightful. The practice of her religious beliefs now can impinge on the beliefs and freedoms of others but not the other way around.

How do my beliefs that support same-sex marriages infringe on your beliefs that oppose them? There is nothing that prohibits you from practicing your beliefs. Don't marry a man. Don't let your sons and grandsons marry men. Don't let your daughters and granddaughters marry women. You can hold those beliefs without forcing the whole nations to live by them, like Jews refusing to eat bacon without eliminating hogs from the North American continent. The laws do not infringe on you practicing your beliefs.


There were, and perhaps still are, a number of people who object to interracial marriages, even though they have been legal throughout the U.S. since a 1967 Supreme Court Case.


Many parents & grandparents believe that "sleeping together" before marriage is wrong. Then they are faced with the dilemma when children or grand-children move in with boy/girl friends about how should they respond. It can become an even greater problem with a child wants to come home for a visit with their "partner".  We live in a world that often acts contrary to our beliefs; but this same world doesn't force us to act contrary to our beliefs. Young people can remain virgins until they are married even if a majority of their friends don't. Jews can refrain from nonkosher foods even if a majority of their neighbors eat them. People can worship on the Sabbath or Sunday even if a majority of Americans don't.

It is not that difficult to find if you really care to understand how those whom you disagree with are impacted.  Just search for Catholic adoption agencies being forced to close due to changing laws.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services.cfm

"In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston, which had been one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, faced a very difficult choice: violate its conscience, or close its doors.In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring "sexual orientation discrimination." And because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placements to married couples.Catholic leaders asked the state legislature for a religious exemption but were refused.As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services."

This was 2006 Brian, consider the magnitude of the change since then, and give thought to what is coming.  This is all quite logical.  When we codify into law a new definition of 'family', it naturally follows that adoption agencies will be encouraged (forced) to comply with the states newly discerned image of the family.  It does not take much thought to come up with other examples.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Bohler asks (and you will have to relay my answers, I'm not sure he reads my postings):
If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, can the bank insist that I only buy a Ford and that I am forbidden to buy a Chevy, and I can only buy from their list of "approved" dealers?
I answe
They might have something to say about the kind of car you buy. And if a bank gives you a mortgage, they have a right to insist that the house meets certain standards.

Pastor Bohler asks:
If I borrow money from the government (in the form of student loans), can the government insist I only attend a school on their "approved" list which teaches what the government wants/approves/directs?
I answer:
In a way, yes. The government can insist that its money not be spent in ways that will sustain or advance discrimination or racism or other things deemed harmful to the public good. It is the public's money and those caring for that money - government and regulatory agencies - have the responsibility to see that it is not spent in ways that work against the public good.

Pastor Bohler asks:
If a homosexual wants to marry, can a baker refuse to bake them a cake (we already know the answer to that one)?  If a Christian wants to attend a Christian college, can the government prevent them (it looks like we know what that answer will be, at least in California)?
I answer:
No, the government cannot prevent a Christian from attending a Christian college. You tell me how they could do that. If you want to spend your own money on a Christian college, you can go wherever you want. If you are using public money, that may not be the case; but in no way can the government prevent anyone from attending a Christian college.

In Re the proposed California Law and similar legislative attempts.  Is there anything that I have not noticed about the California law that suggests that the concern is that the religious schools that would be impacted by the law may not be academically adequate?  Is one or the primary reason for disallowing students from using their Cal Grant money at a particular school that it would not be academically acceptable?

Going to college is a financial burden.  Very few families can simply write a check and put their children through college.  For the vast majority of students there needs to be a mix of financial aid - scholarships and grants, student work during college, family support and student loans.  The more of the former, the less of the latter which eventually will need to be paid back.  Cal Grant is offered to California students who have financial need, have a qualifying academic record and enroll in a California college or university.  It is a major part of a financial aid package and loss of it would greatly increase the cost of college.

The proposed law would change that in that schools that otherwise qualify to receive students with Cal Grants would be prohibited unless they reduce the schools religious involvement.  Religious schools because they are religious schools would be disqualified they segregate their religious involvement to church work preparation and the state would determine what that can be.

In other words, the state would have a anti-religious litmus test for the schools to pass.  You could still go there but at a much greater expense than if you would go to a school that has an ideology that the state approves.  Among colleges and universities in California, the state would pick winners and losers.  Religion as religion would be a loser.  Is it right for the state to discriminate against schools on the basis of religion?

If so, how does that square with the First Amendment?

[Donald_Kirchner]

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...

This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."

[Daniel L. Gard]

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...

This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."

If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights. That is why the law was challenged and, as judicial decisions now go, the challenge was successful.

[Donald_Kirchner]

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...

This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."

If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined  that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights.

No, that is an incorrect analysis. It assumes that the judge and the AG are looking at it from the same perspective.

If you do want to look at it that way, then one can conclude that the law did not grant any legitimate rights that we don't already have and, furthermore, had the potential to excuse otherwise illegal mischief.

The law was a waste of time and money.

[Daniel L. Gard]

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...

This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."

If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined  that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights.

No, that is an incorrect analysis. It assumes that the judge and the AG are looking at it from the same perspective.

If you do want to look at it that way, then one can conclude that the law did not grant any legitimate rights that we don't already have and, furthermore, had the potential to excuse otherwise illegal mischief.

The law was a waste of time and money.

I'm sorry that I cannot agree with you on this.  When rights are threatened, as religious freedom in our country is threatened, then restating those rights through elected legislatures is time and money well spent, not "wasted". To have a court rule those rights unconstitutional is chilling.

I wish I could be a part of the clear majority comprised of you, the court, the AG and those who brought the suit. Then maybe I would have your approval and the "correct analysis."  That would be nice and make me feel good.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?

No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century."  As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries.  As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.

And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian.  One way in which the 21st century is different.

So, it's OK for a Christian to continue working as a prostitute or a drug pusher or a thief? Even in the 21st century, if one's occupation could be in conflict with Christian beliefs - they should give it up.

[Daniel L. Gard]

Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?

No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century."  As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries.  As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.

And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian.  One way in which the 21st century is different.

So, it's OK for a Christian to continue working as a prostitute or a drug pusher or a thief? Even in the 21st century, if one's occupation could be in conflict with Christian beliefs - they should give it up.

Huh? I have no idea where you got this from Pastor Tibbetts' post.

[cssml]

Yet another case, this one with on online Christian dating service:

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/1/christianmingle-loses-lawsuit-must-now-include-gay/

[Brian Stoffregen]

Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?

No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century."  As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries.  As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.

And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian.  One way in which the 21st century is different.

So, it's OK for a Christian to continue working as a prostitute or a drug pusher or a thief? Even in the 21st century, if one's occupation could be in conflict with Christian beliefs - they should give it up.

Huh? I have no idea where you got this from Pastor Tibbetts' post.

I'm saying that our Christian faith can cause people to give up their jobs when they see that it is in conflict with that faith. That's what Hippolytus said in the 2nd century, and it can still be true today. (Pastor Tibbetts stated that it wasn't true today. I gave examples where I think it still applies.) If it goes against one's Christian beliefs to place an adopted child in a family with two men or two women, then perhaps the faithful response means finding a different job. If a pharmacist has come to believe that dispensing contraceptives is contrary to her beliefs, then perhaps the faithful response means finding a different job. Would you expect a Christian with a pro-life conviction to work in an abortion clinic?

[Donald_Kirchner]

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...

This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."

If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined  that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights.

No, that is an incorrect analysis. It assumes that the judge and the AG are looking at it from the same perspective.

If you do want to look at it that way, then one can conclude that the law did not grant any legitimate rights that we don't already have and, furthermore, had the potential to excuse otherwise illegal mischief.

The law was a waste of time and money.

I'm sorry that I cannot agree with you on this.  When rights are threatened, as religious freedom in our country is threatened, then restating those rights through elected legislatures is time and money well spent, not "wasted". To have a court rule those rights unconstitutional is chilling.

I wish I could be a part of the clear majority comprised of you, the court, the AG and those who brought the suit. Then maybe I would have your approval and the "correct analysis."  That would be nice and make me feel good.

I'm sorry that I generated your ire and sarcasm, Dr. Gard. Had I given my personal opinion on the surrender of US boats to Iran, and you told me that my analysis was wrong under Naval standards, I hope that I would not take such

I too lament recent Supreme Court decisions, but the federal judge's decision in the Miss case was a no-brainer, and the State AG and, I suspect, many in Miss gov't, know it. The governor's statement about a vigorous appeal simply is political posturing.

[Steverem]

Same song, next verse:  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437499/other-news-iowas-civil-rights-commission-seeks-regulate-church-services

Might be of interest to those of you who are still foolish enough to make your services "open to the public."

[Donald_Kirchner]

Same song, next verse:  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437499/other-news-iowas-civil-rights-commission-seeks-regulate-church-services

Might be of interest to those of you who are still foolish enough to make your services "open to the public."

"News flash — virtually every church service is open to the public."

[LCMS87]

Here's another article on the Iowa regulations.

[Charles Austin]

A church has already filed a lawsuit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. If the commission is indeed attempting to enforce the "rules" in the brochure on churches, the church has an excellent case and I hope that they win. Churches, who operate without state funds, cannot be told by the state what can be said within those churches.
It would seem clear that while the provisos of the Civil Rights Commission sometimes apply to churches, they do not always apply. This needs clarification.