Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What you missed, and the Daily Kommie dipshit does not realize, is that Employment Division v. Smith was a decision which said the use of marijuana for religious ceremonies is not allowed because pot is against the law.
Actually, it was peyote, not pot. But that's not really that important.
Eh, not really, at the end of the day. It's still a matter of whether religious beliefs are sufficient excuse to be exempted from a generally applicable law. Let's go back to Reynolds, which the Smith decision cites. In Reynolds, the defendant had a religious obligation to take multiple wives. To not do so would have been against his religion. That, however, was not sufficient to establish a constitutionally protected exemption from polygamy laws.That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the State forcing someone to DO something AGAINST their religion.
Scalia's decision in Smith further explains that laws can both prescribe and proscribe actions of general applicability, and that that first amendment does not create a means by which a person becomes exempt just because the prescribed action is a violation of one's religion. He also cites United States v. Lee, where Amish religious beliefs were opposed to Social Security taxes, but that such belief did not excuse the Amish from being obligated to pay the taxes.
Tomato, tomato.That is not a LIMIT ON THEIR CONDUCT. That is forcing them to EXPAND their conduct into areas which violate their religion.
Actually, the ruling doesn't even come close to applying, and would, in fact, work against your position if it did. It just upheld the right of the government to fire a person who later tests positive for using peyote even if they claim they used it during a religious ceremony.
An opinion by Scalia concerning the use of peyote on the job?
Actually, the ruling doesn't even come close to applying, and would, in fact, work against your position if it did. It just upheld the right of the government to fire a person who later tests positive for using peyote even if they claim they used it during a religious ceremony.
Bitch, are you even paying attention? What is my position, eh? What does the Smith case, "work against"? Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. The Smith case didn't involve the right of the government to fire anyone. Smith wasn't a government employee. The case was an appeal of the fact that he'd been denied unemployment benefits.
An opinion by Scalia concerning the use of peyote on the job?
Scalia's decision was not about using peyote on the job. It was about whether the government can mandate an individual's compliance with a law even when such compliance would constitute a violation of the individual's religious beliefs. If you didn't catch that much, then you're not paying attention at all.
An opinion by Scalia concerning the use of peyote on the job?
Scalia's decision was not about using peyote on the job. It was about whether the government can mandate an individual's compliance with a law even when such compliance would constitute a violation of the individual's religious beliefs. If you didn't catch that much, then you're not paying attention at all.
How would your employer know if you took peyote? Does it show up on a drug test?Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are and they could well be minority views but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.Furthermore,When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.
You should not trust some moron on Daily Kommunist for your ideas.
What you missed, and the Daily Kommie dipshit does not realize, is that Employment Division v. Smith was a decision which said the use of marijuana for religious ceremonies is not allowed because pot is against the law.
That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the State forcing someone to DO something AGAINST their religion. That is not a LIMIT ON THEIR CONDUCT. That is forcing them to EXPAND their conduct into areas which violate their religion.
Actually, what it said is that it is legal to fire people who use peyote, not that the government could actually prohibit its use in a religious ceremony.
The clown looks disturbingly like John Wayne Gacy. Anyway it's short notice but is that the best the left can come up with to try to undermine the Catholic Church? An opinion by Scalia concerning the use of peyote on the job?
How would your employer know if you took peyote? Does it show up on a drug test?You should not trust some moron on Daily Kommunist for your ideas.
What you missed, and the Daily Kommie dipshit does not realize, is that Employment Division v. Smith was a decision which said the use of marijuana for religious ceremonies is not allowed because pot is against the law.
That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the State forcing someone to DO something AGAINST their religion. That is not a LIMIT ON THEIR CONDUCT. That is forcing them to EXPAND their conduct into areas which violate their religion.
Actually, what it said is that it is legal to fire people who use peyote, not that the government could actually prohibit its use in a religious ceremony.
The gov't ruled that you can answer 'no' when asked if you use drugs, when it comes to peyote.
How would your employer know if you took peyote? Does it show up on a drug test?Actually, what it said is that it is legal to fire people who use peyote, not that the government could actually prohibit its use in a religious ceremony.
The gov't ruled that you can answer 'no' when asked if you use drugs, when it comes to peyote.
No, the guy came in and told them he used peyote. Idiot.
Everything shows up in drug tests.
How would your employer know if you took peyote? Does it show up on a drug test?
The gov't ruled that you can answer 'no' when asked if you use drugs, when it comes to peyote.
No, the guy came in and told them he used peyote. Idiot.
Everything shows up in drug tests.
That's certainly not true.
Mescalin (Peyote) and Psilocybin (Mushrooms) do not show up on normal drug tests - it is possible to detect, but commercial tests don't test for it. Not even "extended" tests.
(I was incorrect about LSD - it is detectable, but rarely tested for)
