so Stephane where is the line drawn. If someone murders a family member should the family of the victim be allowed to encourage each other to shun the murderer? Should a parent not be allowed to tell their child who they can or cannot talk to. Can a company tell an employee that in their official duties they cannot speak with a competitor about the industry that might be proprietary? Where is the line?
Posts by JC323
-
224How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Let me also ask you this.
Under your theory, no one can tell someone who to speak with and who not too.
Let's say that you are a parent and Timmy down the street you feel is a bad influence and you tell your son not to speak with Timmy because you think he will corrupt your son. Would that be a violation of your son's rights?
Or let's say that your wife slept with someone else and you are so hurt that you tell your grown kids if you speak to your mom again, don't bother speaking to me, because you chose her over me. Would the father be infringing on this children's rights?
There is no compelling governmental interest to ensure that people speak with each other. Even in child neglect laws, the only requirement of communication between a parent and child is to ensure the child's basic necessity. If the parent never says I love you or never says how was school, there is no compelling interest for the government to enforce that.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
The court has ruled on polygamy that there is a compelling governmental interest. That it has been considered as social propriety that a family unit consists of a single marriage and not multiple marriages at the same time. And you used female genital mutilation, again the government has a compelling governmental interest in stopping their citizens from being physically assaulted.
But also those are neutral law. just like a church was formed on the belief that marijuana was a part of their religious belief. But the law that was written was neutral stating that marijuana is a class 1 narcotic and is outlawed under federal law.
So please propose how you would want a neutral law to be written that doesn't violate the free exercise of religion and free association of the constitution.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Ok Now we are speaking the same language. Again the court after court after court has stated that the decision of membership, discipline and polity within a religion is up to the religion. What you are asking the court to do is say that this part of someone's faith is wrong and that it should be outlawed. That would then put the courts in deciding what is correct and what is not correct in religion. That would then put the government into a place that lifts one religion or one type of religious practice up over another, which would be a violation of the First Amendment in the US.
It seems like you are from Canada. That was the crux of the Wall case. That can a church decide how to discipline it's members when they do not adhere to the rules of their faith, who is allowed to be a member of their religion.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Again Stephane. You are looking only at the Paul case and saying what you want to read it as. Again the New Mexico case took the argument that the religious faith enforced ostracization or shunning, that those that disobeyed the commands of the faith's leader would suffer consequences. The court ruled that such a determination of bringing a civil suit would be in violation of the constitution.
But let us look at it in another way. We can both agree that someone can choose not to speak to someone that is a given fact. Your assertion that it is a violation of a person's right to be told not to speak to someone. Then it would be who has the standing to file suit. It would not be the person who is not being spoken too. No one is infringing on their right to choose to speak to someone or not. The person who might have standing is the person who is being told not to talk to someone else. As a member of a church, the courts have ruled that the final arbiter of what is allowed within a church, under neutral law, is the church itself.
Let us take the Amish for instance. it is the right for someone to choose to own a iphone or not right? but if the Amish say to its members if you use an iphone and that is considered as modern technology that is against our religious beliefs you will be cast out of our community. The court cannot come in and tell the Amish community you must let that person use an iphone.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Poopie. You really don't understand the constitution please stop with that.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
The New Mexico case was in fact about enforcing it. That case referenced yes the Paul case but also the Alaska Supreme Court Case.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
Stephane you constantly state that if only the court would see it. I have shown you a number of cases where the courts have seen it. In the exact way that you want them to see it and each time they turn it down.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
It maybe important but making something actionable is a different matter.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
JC323
No, it does not. Because the 14th Amendment does 2 things. It defines who is a citizen of the United States of America. The second is that it extends the rights guaranteed by the constitution to States. Meaning that state law can be struck down if in violation to the US Constitution.
This is from wikipedia. Not the most reliable source but in a pinch it will do.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v. United States (1935), to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.
The bold was added by me. it states that it prohibits state and local governments. key thing is governments, from abridging the rights in the constitution.