Corporations are people! And can believe in God!

[Kidlicious]

I demand a law that forces MrFun to read my posts.

[Berzerker]

A significant law came out after that ruling, mind.

the law didn't amend the Constitution

This isn't a drug case.

so?

[DinoDoc]

so?

I wouldn't expect the Court to see it the same way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the law didn't amend the Constitution

It changed the level of scrutiny that applies to free exercise cases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To continue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal

Supreme Court involving the Federal Government's seizure of a sacramental tea, containing a Schedule I substance, from a New Mexican branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal (UDV). The church sued, claiming the seizure was illegal, and sought to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The United States District Court for New Mexico agreed and issued a preliminary injunction under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. The Government appealed to the Appeals Court for the Tenth Circuit which upheld the previous ruling, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments November 1, 2005, and issued its opinion February 21, 2006, finding that the Government failed to meet its burden under RFRA that barring the substance served a compelling government interest. The court also disagreed with the government's central argument that the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not allow for exceptions for the substance in this case, as Native Americans are given exceptions to use peyote, another Schedule I substance.

ie, the direct opposite result happened than in Employment Division v. Smith due to the RFRA.

[Berzerker]

how did scalia rule?

I thought he considered rfra unconstitutionial

[MRT144]

Thank god we eventually die because the way this country is going, intangible associations of people formed to ensure indemnity from liability will be considered more deserving of protections than individual human beings.

[DinoDoc]

how did scalia rule?

I thought he considered rfra unconstitutionial

Jesus Christ, Berz. Read the ****ing link.

Majority: Roberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer

[Kidlicious]

I don't see the difference between taking drugs for religious purposes and taking them for any other purpose, legal ddifferences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

how did scalia rule?

I thought he considered rfra unconstitutionial

It was unanimous.

[Kidlicious]

Thank god we eventually die because the way this country is going, intangible associations of people formed to ensure indemnity from liability will be considered more deserving of protections than individual human beings.

What freedom are people being denied?

[MRT144]

What freedom are people being denied?

It was a slippery slope lamentation.

[Kidlicious]

It was a slippery slope lamentation.

The problem I have with not treating corporations etc as people is that people invest their time and money into those and they should have the freedom to do so without interference from the government. Interfering with corporations is interfering with people.

That said, I'm not totally against regulation etc., but we should remember that there are people involved.

[MRT144]

The problem I have with not treating corporations etc as people is that people invest their time and money into those and they should have the freedom to do so without interference from the government. Interfering with corporations is interfering with people.

That said, I'm not totally against regulation etc., but we should remember that there are people involved.

It's totally a government construct though enabled by government, through government. It's part of why natural rights myths boggle my mind - we have legal entities that are people as far as legality is concerned because it's been affirmed again and again that we as a society are mostly comfortable with it.

It's also really distressing when corporations are pitted against individuals and the corporation is favored on the principle that harming the corporation could hurt a far larger group of people than it's worth. Think in regards to how individual financial crime is treated vs. corporate financial crime.

[Kidlicious]

Corporations shouldn't be favored, but then no one should, including individuals. But the reality is that some people recieve special treatment because they are favored by powerful people, like judges and other government officials. You are right to speak out against that.