Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

And turning that frown into a creepy leer.

[Siquo]

If that passes, I will personally punch everyone who lives in North Dakota. In the face.

Because your religion told you to? Sounds legit.

[Scelly9]

My religion requires me to make everyone pay $20 to avoid being punched in the face.

[lordcooper]

The actual wording doesn't make that sound too bad IMO.

This initiated constitutional measure would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution stating, "Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities."

Shouldn't that pretty much be the case anyway?

[Lagslayer]

I do believe that is pretty much the case. However, this could loosen the grip a little bit, assuming the federal government doesn't shut it down and the state judges interpret it as such.

[Leafsnail]

Hey, some people don't have the 4chan sense of humor. But once you get past the blatant racism and such (Which is all really just people pretending to be racist.) it's pretty damn funny.

This one isn't racist though.  There's just no joke.

[lordcooper]

I do believe that is pretty much the case. However, this could loosen the grip a little bit, assuming the federal government doesn't shut it down and the state judges interpret it as such.

So why are people flipping out about this?

[Lagslayer]

I do believe that is pretty much the case. However, this could loosen the grip a little bit, assuming the federal government doesn't shut it down and the state judges interpret it as such.

So why are people flipping out about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o

[Knight of Fools]

The actual wording doesn't make that sound too bad IMO.

This initiated constitutional measure would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution stating, "Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities."

Shouldn't that pretty much be the case anyway?

Sounds fairly ambiguous and harmless. It's basically saying, "If they're not doing something illegal the government can't discriminate on the basis of religion", which is basically how everything works anyways. It's not like they're legalizing something controversial, or even something that could potentially be controversial. I don't see any problems here, even in a worse-case-scenario, unless someone can throw out some specific examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o

I love this song, but I never knew who sang it! Thanks!

[Bauglir]

It does potentially mean that for every act of law enforcement, the government body responsible needs to provide additional paperwork demonstrating that it has a "compelling interest" (whatever that means) and that there are no alternatives that impact the ability to exercise religious beliefs less.

[Truean]

Really, this is the US Supreme Court's job and people are trying to butt into it because they don't understand the Constitution and the First Amendment. Separation of Powers....

The government already can't pass a law imposing upon a fundamental right (usually the first 10 amendments) without a "compelling government interest narrowly tailored to meet that interest." This is the strict scrutiny test the SCOTUS has employed for years. There are tons of cases saying what is and is not an unconstitutional law attempting to illegally regulate a protected religious activity.

What this law is trying to do is take power away from the US Supreme Court and give it to morons who don't agree with SCOTUS without even understanding why it ruled the way it did. "I think it isn't right that ______." Nobody cares. There has to be a final arbiter as to what constitutes an unconstitutional imposition on religion and it was known from the start that by definition not everyone would agree with that. Namely the side that lost, no matter which side, would hate the system's outcome.

Don't get me wrong, SCOTUS does some bass ackwards things I don't agree with, but I understand WHY it ruled the way it did.

Once again, just like Arizona, people are barking up the wrong tree and passing laws that shouldn't be, because they don't fit into the system. Rather than go through the proper channels, they'll pass this kind of law again and clog up the works while blaming government for failure. The failure is that most people don't even understand the basics of their high school civics course and even that is incredibly watered down.... [sigh].

[MaximumZero]

So, basically, the idiots who think this should pass deserve to be punched in the face. I'm on board. ^_^

[Aklyon]

MaximumZero: Arbiter of Facepunching.

[GlyphGryph]

"Please, MZ", the people will say, "don't punch us", and he will look down, and he will say "No."

And then he will punch them in the face.

[MonkeyHead]

Reminds me of a chapter of the Novel "Dead Air" by Iain Banks, where the protagonist punches a holocaust denier on TV, and denies it, despite the recorded evidence. Quite a good way to make a point, and in the novel the denier drops the charges realizing the trap he is in.