Tearing Down the First Amendment
69legal insights
 | Amazon Price: $6.25 List Price: $29.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.00 List Price: $13.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $29.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.88 List Price: $16.95 |
The free exercise of religion
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Courts, on the other hand seem to think they can.
The courts have jurisdiction to interpret the laws within the bounds of the constitution. They have no power to legislate and are duty bound to rule as unconstitutional any law which violates the constitution. When interpreting laws or the constitution they do not have the power to rewrite either. The law can be ruled improper and the constitution must be upheld but the court cannot rewrite the law or ignore the constitution.
Despite their mandate to uphold the law the courts have once again ignored the constitution and violated it’s tenants in the name of fairness. In McKinley v. eHarmony, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit in 2005 against the dating site on the grounds that it did not cater to homosexuals. The founder and shareholders who sought to establish a safe dating site under Christian principles had the audacity to ignore the gay community and direct their services to the, much larger, heterosexual population. McKinley found it “very frustrating… very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't." [find a date on eHarmony]
The fact that other dating sites, who do cater to homosexuals, routinely made fun of the fact that many heterosexual people were also rejected by eHarmony seems to have made no difference. The court ruled eHarmony was wrong, made them pay $5,000 to McKinley and $50,000 to the New Jersey Civil Rights Division, and forced them to open a sister site catering to homosexuals and advertising that site with pictures of same sex couples to promote same sex matching services.
the free exersize clause
|
Interpreting the Free Exercise of Religion: The Constit
Current Bid: $6.95
|
|
Interpreting the Free Exercise of Religion: The Constit
Current Bid: $63.71
|
|
The Free Exercise of Religion Clause: The First Amendment Berg, Thomas C. (Edito
Current Bid: $35.36
|
|
FACILITATORS OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION USAF book
Current Bid: $4.95
|
What’s that got to do with the first amendment/religion
One of the selling points of eHarmony is that it was founded by Christians with Christian principles and targeted to Christian/Conservative singles seeking a meaningful relationship. Their criteria and screening process are designed to weed out those who are looking for casual dating opportunities or who might be seeking opportunities for infidelity or casual sex. The process isn’t perfect but is much more effective than most other services leading to a strong client base that happily recommends them to others. Forcing a Christian based organization to do what it might consider morally and biblically wrong violates their first amendment rights. In fact it outlaws those rights in direct violation of the free exercise clause.
Many conservative Christians will not deal with a company that openly supports a view they disagree with. By forcing eHarmony to do something many of it’s clients will consider immoral the court has ruled in favor of punishing the company by harming it’s profits for the “crime” of following their religious convictions.
Given this decision, how long will it be before lawsuits are brought against churches who refuse membership to homosexuals or polygamists or atheists or anyone else living a lifestyle the religion considers immoral.
The right to never be offended
It seems there is an invisible amendment to the constitution. I can’t find it written anywhere but, one court after another rules that people have a right to not be offended.
If someone is offended at a child saying grace over his lunch at school the school can sanction the child to protect the atheists feelings. If a homosexual is offended at a business catering to heterosexuals (90-99 percent of the population depending on which study you read) then they can force them to cater to gays as well even if it offends half their clients. If someone takes offense to the pictures on my office walls I can be forced to take them down and even forced to pay damages to the offended party.
The funny thing is this right only applies to certain people. I have no recourse if I am offended at the policies of a dating site. Once upon a time I could take my business elsewhere but, the court has just ruled that choice away. I was offended by the asst principal who threatened to suspend me for reading the bible (silently, by myself, during the lunch period) but neither I nor my parents could do anything but ignore him and risk suspension. I’m offended by those who place their feelings above my morals but the court has taken away my recourse there as well.
Isn’t it about time we required our courts to ensure the actual constitutional rights of our citizens instead of the invisible ones?
CommentsLoading...
I was quickly warned that this hub might cost me bad ratings. I don't care. The constitution is not designed to protect special groups at the expense of the general population. It is designed to restrict government from interfering in our lives or harming our freedoms.
The founding fathers understood that power currupts and that those who have it always seek more. They wrote the constitution to ensure that our government cannot become that sort of tyranny. It makes it easy to fight against and defeat politically those who try to undermine it which is why laws like McCain/Fiengold are wrong. All three branches of government have admitted this law is unconstitutional and the reason is that it protects government power at the expense of the people.
We have forgotten that a judge, even a supreme court justice, who ignores the constitution or whose ruling violate that document can and should be impeached. We have forgotten that Elected members of the legislative and executive branch are sworn to uphold the constition and undermining it is an impeachable offense. We have fogotten that freedom is not absolute but it is powerful. Most importantly we have forgotten Stan Lee "with great power comes great responsibility."
We have not real right to be uninvolved in politics. We are responsible to learn the issues, hold opinions and vote. We cannot continue to complain that there are no good candidates if we are not willing to get involved ourselves. Reagan became a great leader because he gave in to a group that convinced him running for governor would reenergize the conservative movement. He had no desire to be a politician and was genuinely shocked when he won.
He made the decision to do what he knew to be right when he was called upon to do so and made this country a better place. Like the congress under contract with America. They ran on the contract, they stood on the contract and they enacted the entire contract in less than 100 days after taking office. The fact that the senate and president shot down most of those bills causes people to forget that a group of honest men ran on a platform and followed it to the letter. They still think all politicians lie during campaigns and all campaign promises are forgotten after the election.
GW Bush fulfilled his promises. Reagn fulfilled his promises. Gingrich and his fellow congressmen fulfilled their promises. If you want more poloticians like that find the onew you trust and back them. Better yet, run yourself and fulfill your promises.
"The constitution is not designed to protect special groups at the expense of the general population. It is designed to restrict government from interfering in our lives or harming our freedoms."
The NRA seems to be protected against the interests of people not getting shot.
The NRA protects our right to shoot back. The second amendment to the US constitution appears as the first ammendment in many states because, without it, the rest of the ammendments cannot be enforced. The right to bear arms goes back to the ideals of the Declaration of Independance which reminds us of our responsibility to overthrow tyrants. Does a burglar have a right not to get shot? Even if his intent is to rpe your child?
The right to defend ourselves against government and criminals as well as invading armies is among the most fundamental freedoms recognized by any developing democracy. It is only from the comfort of long held freedom that we have enough luxury to forget why we have weapons. Our founding fathers wrote "He who would give up a little liberty for percieved security deserves neither."
Without the greedom of arms we would have no recourse against a government that took away our other freedoms. England is a relatively free society but, if the government decides to ignore liberty in favor of their own interests, they have the army and the guns to do it. In the US, that army would find itself in a life an death struggle with an armed populace.
what about the risks, though? The number of people shot and injured by accident?
The number of accidental shootings has gone down in every year for the last 50 or more despite the number of guns in private ownership going up. Those who spend the money to purchase a gun are generally interested enough to learn how to properly and safely handle it. Most gun range owners and managers are happy to provide basic instruction for free as a courtesy. It improves the safety of the range and passes along a hobby they enjoy.
Writing this I started with 7 or 8 paragraphs but instead I will just have to write another hub. Frankly a second amendment conversation has little or nothing to do with the subject of this one.
allshookup 3 years ago
Yes it is. I'm afraid the people in office now are not going to be of much help and perhaps could cause more harm. Any ideas about how we can accomplish this? I'm sick of it and so are many others. Many people, and I'm sure you have seen many on here, who interpet that what it means is that chruch can not have anything to do with politics or government. You'd think with so much education here in the USA they would know the actual meaning of something this important. But then again, they very well may be doing it to make themselves, running over the First Amendment with no care but what makes them happy. Great hub! Keep speaking the truth! It's a rare thing nowdays!