While the Constitution clearly prohibits an establishment of religion it still respects the right of Government authorities to have religious views. There are no reasonable grounds to recuse as one would have if they had a deeply personal involvement in a legal issue being decided.
My Revenge will be Success! - Donald J Trump
LescoBrandon (11-28-2022)
RMNIXON (11-28-2022)
While several of the more high profile cases of this nature have been dismissed on technical grounds, I believe that going forward the courts will end up establishing a positive divide between instances where someone is being asked to create a message - whether it is on a cake, a t-shirt, a poster, etc. - that they find objectionable on religious grounds, which touches on the question of whether forcing an individual to transmit or communicate a message by whatever medium is a violation of their right to free speech, and cases in which an individual is simply denied service on the basis of their stated or perceived sexual preference. There is a difference, as defense attorneys in some of these cases have pointed out, between simply selling someone an item, on the one hand, and being asked to participate in promulgating a message they don't agree with on the other.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Captdon (11-29-2022),Collateral Damage (11-29-2022),FindersKeepers (11-30-2022),Red Lily (11-29-2022)
Standing Wolf (11-28-2022)
While there's a difference, there shouldn't be. Constitutional protections of rights are or should be protections of the individual or group against government interference and that alone.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Barrett urged to recuse herself from Supreme Court LGBT case over Christian faith
What does her religious faith have to do with her ability to judge whether or not a law is constitutional?
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. - Benjamin Franklin.
When people get used to preferential treatment equal treatment seems like discrimination. - Thomas Sowell
Originally Posted by Standing Wolf
While several of the more high profile cases of this nature have been dismissed on technical grounds, I believe that going forward the courts will end up establishing a positive divide between instances where someone is being asked to create a message - whether it is on a cake, a t-shirt, a poster, etc. - that they find objectionable on religious grounds, which touches on the question of whether forcing an individual to transmit or communicate a message by whatever medium is a violation of their right to free speech, and cases in which an individual is simply denied service on the basis of their stated or perceived sexual preference. There is a difference, as defense attorneys in some of these cases have pointed out, between simply selling someone an item, on the one hand, and being asked to participate in promulgating a message they don't agree with on the other.
As in the Cake case it will come down to balancing of competing rights. SCOTUS remanded the Cake case back to the start, recall the first trial was at a city level adjudication where the adjudicator not just ignored the cake maker's First Amendment rights, but mocked them.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
LescoBrandon (11-29-2022)