Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,101
- 245
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.