Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

azureblue

(2,146 posts)
28. what the SC just did
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 12:45 PM
Nov 2020

was to throw open a door they didn't want to be opened: The door of "which religion are we talking about?"
Now that they have made this decision, then other religions can step forward and claim exemption from the law based upon legal grounds. For example there could be a religious group that takes mushrooms during their services. Mushrooms are illegal is some states but they can claim a religious exemption, based upon this ruling.

Then comes the lovely part wherein these so called Christian get hoisted by their own petard - The church of Satan can and mostly likely will say something like "It is in our religious tenets that abortion is allowed, so stopping a woman from getting an abortion is an infringement on our religion." Now the SC has to rule and even hairier, they have to decide what is a valid religion. That is, anybody can say they have a religion now and claim exemption. Say there is a bunch from Britain and they form a left side religion where it is their belief that God tells them to drive on the left side of the road and driving on the right side of the road is immoral. Now what? Does the SC say that this religion is not a true religion? Does the SC say their original ruling has to apply here because it sets precedent?

IOW the SC to say their ruling only applies to certain religions of their approval.

What religions require you to go to church to practice them? sboatcar Nov 2020 #1
Depends. Some churches admit that members can practice their knowledge of the difference ancianita Nov 2020 #3
Biden speaks well on this issue.. ananda Nov 2020 #20
Yes Northern NY. Andy Knows from whence he speaks yankeepants Nov 2020 #2
How did they know who the asymptomatic person was. ancianita Nov 2020 #4
Perhaps a mandatory job-related test? Routine doc appointment? Pre-dental? yankeepants Nov 2020 #5
Right? One would think that church leaders would require those, or at least a temperature ancianita Nov 2020 #7
But temp checks don't screen out wnylib Nov 2020 #30
Definitely on separation of church and state! ananda Nov 2020 #23
As a New Yorker, I feel my Gov is doing an excellent job despite his yankeepants Nov 2020 #6
He is. But it's a question of whose rights prevail -- those who are religious or everyone else's. ancianita Nov 2020 #11
SCOTUS shouldn't have even taken this case.. mountain grammy Nov 2020 #8
Not a lawyer, I'd agree it's a state decision, but then the plaintiffs claim national standing. ancianita Nov 2020 #9
Wasn't there ANOTHER multi thousand person wedding of a rabbi's BigmanPigman Nov 2020 #10
Yes. And Cuomo publicly addressed this in a previous public briefing. ancianita Nov 2020 #12
I am steaming mad! BigmanPigman Nov 2020 #14
Harry Litman? He's an attorney, not a constitutional lawyer. Anyone can claim to ancianita Nov 2020 #15
Unless we end gerrymandering angrychair Nov 2020 #29
gerrymandering is not at fault here. A state is going to have the same number of yellowdogintexas Nov 2020 #32
I watched some videos of those weddings and I couldn't believe how huge the crowds were yellowdogintexas Nov 2020 #33
I never even knew these events took place BigmanPigman Nov 2020 #35
We live in a country where religion is elevated over science. Yavin4 Nov 2020 #13
Agree. According to Justice Roberts, belief numbers aren't as protected as human health numbers. ancianita Nov 2020 #16
And we can attribute it to Nixon's Southern Strategy. Initech Nov 2020 #17
This decision is contrary to the establishment clause nuxvomica Nov 2020 #18
One is moved to ask how they would rule over actions like those of Amon Bundy, David Koresh, Ford_Prefect Nov 2020 #19
God is not going to protect the people the SCOTUS has condemned to death in this decision RVN VET71 Nov 2020 #21
anyone else already sick of this "christo-Taliban on the Potomac" shit? bringthePaine Nov 2020 #22
I have been for years. roamer65 Nov 2020 #39
I only feel sorry for llashram Nov 2020 #24
The restrictions are temporary The Wizard Nov 2020 #25
Or until a big D Dem Congress moves to restructure it -- 13 justices for 13 federal districts. ancianita Nov 2020 #26
Nothing like a nice stuffy church as a prelude to a nice stuffy ventilator bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #27
...or a nice stuffy coffin or cremation chamber. roamer65 Nov 2020 #38
what the SC just did azureblue Nov 2020 #28
It's now a Rethuglicon Supreme Court and they are a death cult . Many more will die because of their geretogo Nov 2020 #31
after biden is in office send in the police rdking647 Nov 2020 #34
I really hope this brings about the demonization of religious extremism. roamer65 Nov 2020 #36
King James Matt 18:20 Turbineguy Nov 2020 #37
What exactly are you trying to say. ancianita Nov 2020 #40
According to Jesus Turbineguy Nov 2020 #42
Shame on the NYT (and others) for misrepresenting the decision Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #41
Thank you for the clarification. ancianita Nov 2020 #43
This decision was about the collection plate not about freedom of speech. iemitsu Nov 2020 #44
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Cuomo Attacks Supreme Cou...»Reply #28