3 ms·

Will SCOTUS side with other Christian beliefs? I'm thinking specifically of the traditional "peace churches", Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and their historical o

Will SCOTUS side with other Christian beliefs? I'm thinking specifically of the traditional "peace churches", Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and their historical opposition to war and killing. What if a Quaker decides to not register for selective service because of strongly held religious beliefs? What if a devote Mennonite subtracts 28% (or whatever the DoD gets as a percentage of the yearly budget) from their income tax? The latter has happened in the past, btw. How far does religious belief and freedom of religion take us?

hirundo 4y ago
We won't find out from this case, which was accepted for its freedom of speech rather than religion arguments.
- adamredwoods 4y ago
  >> Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Waggoner was on her "strongest ground when you're talking about her sitting down and designing and coming up with the graphics to customize them for the couple." Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    > Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy. This proves its about “speech” - plug-and-play is hardly the same level of speech as a unique design. More-specifically, there is a difference, legally, between “conduct” and “speech”. Eg. You can say discriminatory things, but you cannot do discriminatory things. So the question at hand.. what if you discriminate what you do, to avoid being compelled to say something you don’t want to. A Plug-and-play website might not pass the test when it comes to being “speech” the way unique artistic graphic might.
crackercrews 4y ago
You don't have to avoid SSS registration. The govt already has an exception for "conscientious objectors" that requires appearing before a panel. [1] It sounds like any observant Quaker would pass with flying colors. Still a hassle of course. 1: https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/ https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/
- bediger4000 4y ago
  Thanks, last time I looked, which was a few years ago this did not exist. Good to see this coming back in the system! But you still have to register, and I can imagine someone objecting even to that, someone Amish, say. They object to going to high school.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Conscientious objections have been permitted for over a century in the U.S., and the last major legal changes to the law were made in the 1980s...
yieldcrv 4y ago
Bring the cases and find out This case is only going to modify the Colorado statute, and maybe others It likely won’t answer all your questions But in America if you have a little free time and money you can mold the country by bringing these cases, instead of just imagining them at your keyboard Dont let your dreams be dreams, or your slippery slopes hypothetical
ss108 4y ago
There's already caselaw about a lot of that. Also, SCOTUS and other federal courts frequently do rule in favor of religious rights regardless of whether the person asserting them is Christian. Not always, but it's not like they conspicuously don't.

hirundo 4y ago

We won't find out from this case, which was accepted for its freedom of speech rather than religion arguments.

adamredwoods 4y ago
>> Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Waggoner was on her "strongest ground when you're talking about her sitting down and designing and coming up with the graphics to customize them for the couple." Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > Barrett questioned whether the First Amendment would still protect Smith if she wanted to decline to provide a "plug-and-play" website to a gay couple that an opposite-sex couple could buy. This proves its about “speech” - plug-and-play is hardly the same level of speech as a unique design. More-specifically, there is a difference, legally, between “conduct” and “speech”. Eg. You can say discriminatory things, but you cannot do discriminatory things. So the question at hand.. what if you discriminate what you do, to avoid being compelled to say something you don’t want to. A Plug-and-play website might not pass the test when it comes to being “speech” the way unique artistic graphic might.

crackercrews 4y ago

You don't have to avoid SSS registration. The govt already has an exception for "conscientious objectors" that requires appearing before a panel. [1] It sounds like any observant Quaker would pass with flying colors. Still a hassle of course. 1: https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/ https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/

bediger4000 4y ago
Thanks, last time I looked, which was a few years ago this did not exist. Good to see this coming back in the system! But you still have to register, and I can imagine someone objecting even to that, someone Amish, say. They object to going to high school.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Conscientious objections have been permitted for over a century in the U.S., and the last major legal changes to the law were made in the 1980s...

yieldcrv 4y ago

Bring the cases and find out This case is only going to modify the Colorado statute, and maybe others It likely won’t answer all your questions But in America if you have a little free time and money you can mold the country by bringing these cases, instead of just imagining them at your keyboard Dont let your dreams be dreams, or your slippery slopes hypothetical

ss108 4y ago

There's already caselaw about a lot of that. Also, SCOTUS and other federal courts frequently do rule in favor of religious rights regardless of whether the person asserting them is Christian. Not always, but it's not like they conspicuously don't.