Poll of the Day > Conservative justices say "screw precedent" to favor religion

(+) Yeah! (+)

Supreme court decision in 1990: A law that applies equally to everyone is constitutional even if it harms religious practice, so long as the law is not specifically targeting religious practice. (states can withhold benefits as punishment to native Americans for religious use of peyote, which is not protected by first amendment, because the law prohibits drug use for secular and religious people)

Conservative justices in 2021: A law that applies equally to everyone is unconstitutional if it harms religious practice, even if the law is not specifically targeting religious practice. (California prohibited indoor gatherings of more than 3 households, supreme court conservative justices said it is an unconstitutional limit on religious gatherings in homes. This isn't talking about churches, it's personal homes. Religious gatherings in churches are already allowed by a previous supreme court ruling)

Losing arguments for then and now: states shouldn't bother punishing bona fide religious peyote use; states have a public health interest in limiting gatherings of multiple households indoors, this restriction applies to secular and religious gatherings alike, and it does not place undue strain on religious practice.

Is the difference in opinion because the 1990 case wasn't protecting the right religion?

Do you feel this decision is gives religious citizens a privileged, instead of equal, status?

---

Clench281 posted...

Is the difference in opinion because the 1990 case wasn't protecting the right religion?

No, it's strictly a function of who is on the court, and since 1990 it has been packed with far right religious conservatives.
Of course Dems are as spineless as ever and aren't going to do anything about Republicans stealing SC seats by delaying a vote for 11 months to block Obama but them ramming one through in 3 weeks for Trump.

I wish we'd just get rid of tax exemption status for religious institutions completely. It's so fucking bogus how broad and abused that law is. "Prosperity gospel" leaders flying around in private jets w/ fleets of cars and living in mansions get to evade taxes b/c "it's a religion".

Clench281 posted...

Supreme court decision in 1990: A law that applies equally to everyone is constitutional even if it harms religious practice, so long as the law is not specifically targeting religious practice. (states can withhold benefits as punishment to native Americans for religious use of peyote, which is not protected by first amendment, because the law prohibits drug use for secular and religious people)

Which was a terrible decision at the time, and yet another horrible thing that the US government did the indigenous population.


---

You could also title this as 'Supreme court made a shitty decision thirty years ago and have since fixed it'

---

its like saying that a policy can discriminate based on race as long as a long as its not explicitly stated that the policy is designed to discriminate is based on race.

its like...things can have unintended consequences sometimes, but also sometimes the intention is quite clear even when you don't say it out loud (e.g., bans on dreadlocks, dress codes that don't allow "urban" wear)