Judge: Religious expression is not protected by the Constitution

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/20/15 | Dustin Siggins

[wagglebee]

"For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled.

That's to prohibit things like human sacrifice you moron.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[yldstrk]

Excuse me?

[manc]

so why can a muslim in prison be told by the courts he can grow a beard due to his religious beliefs?

The country was founded on religious freedom, that was the reason why people came here in the first place. Now Libs like liberals and libertarians think it’s wrong and don’t agree but it is a fact. They think Christians are imposing their religious views onto them , but what is going on is how Christians are being targeted and having their rights stripped away.

[Don Corleone]

Day by day,hour by hour, comma and period by comma and period moronic activist left leaning judges are stripping away the magnificent work of the founding fathers.

[skeeter]

At the same time the FBI is ordered to stop monitoring Mosques.

[chesley]

Nah. Ever since the ‘60s you could tell this was coming.

[Texas Eagle]

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.

Unless you are Sikh who wants to wear his or her turban while on duty or a Mooselimb who doesn't want to shave his beard or a detainee at Gitmo who insists on halal meals and a prayer rug.

Otherwise, right.

Let me boil it down for you troglodyte Christians. The Constitution is un-Constitutional.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

Judge Eckstrom seem to rule that I can be sued for violating someone’s civil rights because I took the LIFE ACTION of actually closing my business on a RELIGIOUS holiday, and thus could not accommadate the would-be customer.
The service I provide is provided AT THE MOMENT, not one scheduled for a later date, thus my closing denies the customer, because of my religious beliefs, the benefit of said service.
Your, (dis)Honor, go to a very warm Zip Code.

[annalex]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (The First Amendment. to the US Constitution)

Rulings like this one in Washington do two things:

• Cause injury to people caught in the clutches of this court;
• Delegitimize US laws in general as making any law, no matter how clearly written, subject to judicial caprice

[Adder]

She cannot be forced to create a message she disagrees with.

She should try to appeal on Speech grounds.

Worth a shot: the forces of evil are aligned against religious belief.

The homosexual’s right trumps YOUR right because they say so.

But you cannot be made to speak.

She had no problem selling them cakes pies and cookies. But to bake a cake for their “marriage” was to create a message and she has every right to refuse to speak that message.

[Alex Murphy]

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not...."For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled. He said that "in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."

PFL

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...

How does “His Honor” deny such “free exercise” protected by A-1?

[Regal]

I think that if you close your business only to certain people, your example would be oon point.

[DownInFlames]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So as long as you leave your beliefs at the church door, you are okay?

[MHGinTN]

The sad reality of the judicial system is that she is Constitutionally within her rights but if this goes all the way to the subprime Court the owned black-robed puissant blackmailed whores such as Roberts will do as their masters tell them and rule against the Constitution, albeit they will tell US that they are 'interpreting the Constitution'.

If there remain no men with convictions and the courage to stand against the blackmail and threats, the very small gaggle of dead-soul oligarchs take over the planet and toss it into the sewer for the next several hundred years. Individuals like John Roberts and John Boehner are the black-mailable shills the oligarchs allow into power knowing they will do as they are commanded to do reqardless of the treachery.

[DJ MacWoW]

Madison's Notes for the Bill of Rights

Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register Madison, on June 8, moved that "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

[captain_dave]

A possible work-around for stores would be to have a subcontractor clause in their contracts. So, they can accept the contract and then sub it to another who doesn’t mind dealing with the client base. Just claim you had to sub it for health reasons.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The judge is wrong. She should appeal on the grounds that the judge is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion.