In all honesty, the foundation of the court cases is based on an 1871 supreme court case. I really don't see any court bucking precedent for 148 years of case law.
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
Ok, so that is your definition of compelling governmental action. that is perfectly logical. But there is a wealth of case law that disagrees with you. And I honestly from the bottom of my heart if you somehow got a state legislature to make a law defining it, it would be struck down by the courts even before the ink is dry on the governor's signature. Just because the case law does not define it the way that you expect it to, how mandatory precedent rules apply would require courts to strike 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
No a priest cannot apply corporal punishment because again it is a neutral law. The goverment has a compeling interest in their citizens not being physically assaulted.
Please describe the compelling governmental interest that you want to apply with JW shunning.
-
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
So you accept that people with authority have the right to control aspects of their lives. Under the law, whether you think it is right or not, the internal discipline or the internal rules of that faith lies with one entity the religion. That is the only entity that can make rules that don't violate a neutral law.
-
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
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?
-
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.