United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: High School tennis stars score religious liberty victory in Washington state
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: https://www.thedailysheeple.com/hig ... y-victory-in-washington-state/
Published: Aug 31, 2019
Author: Sean Walton
Post Date: 2019-09-01 12:24:22 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 10193
Comments: 185
Siblings Joseph & Joelle Chung Two high school tennis stars scored a religious liberty victory in Washington state after being kicked off the court for their faith. The Chung siblings, Joseph, 15, and Joelle, 17, both Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant denomination that observes Sabbath on Saturday as recorded in the Bible, sued the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) earlier this month after Joelle was disqualified from her final state tennis postseason competition because she doesn’t play on Saturdays. The Chung family, represented by Becket, a religious liberty law firm, filed a motion to withdraw their federal suit on Tuesday after WIAA agreed to add religious observance to its reasons for missing games without being penalized. Paul Chung, Joelle’s father, told “The Ingraham Angle” earlier this month that his daughter, who was undefeated on the court, valued her commitment to God more than tennis. “She was disappointed that she couldn’t help the team but she shouldn’t have to choose between religion and playing tennis,” Chung said. Joe Davis, Becket counsel and attorney for the Chungs, told Fox News Friday “it’s an important win for religious student-athletes in Washington and sets a favorable precedent nationwide.” “It’s common sense that Sabbath observers shouldn’t be excluded from any postseason sports competition at all just because of the hypothetical possibility of a schedule conflict somewhere down the line—and after the rule change, they won’t be.” WIAA denied her family’s request for a religious accommodation last season because WIAA’s previous rules stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty. WIAA had no exception for sincerely-held religious beliefs. “For the Chung family, keeping the Sabbath holy is a serious commitment,” Becket, a religious liberty law firm, wrote in a complaint filed Aug. 6. The Chungs, both playing for William F. West High School, had conflicts with the WIAA’s state championship schedule, which included a Saturday. While Joelle had to sit out her final postseason play, Joseph, a rising sophomore, was set to have the same fate this year before the rule change. “We’re hopeful that the WIAA will take the next step and eliminate the schedule conflicts altogether, as the law requires,” Davis added. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 149.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
She was disappointed that she couldn’t help the team I can't get behind this. If she is part of a team that is counting on her, she should fulfill her obligations. Other athletes are counting on her participation. It is not fair to them. I realize she is Seven Day Adventist, but if Sabbath worship is that important she should withdraw from the team. And...she sued the WIAA costing them money to defend themselves! I worship on Sunday. If my church has athletes that need to play on Sunday then they need to go and play. Church will still be there when they finish the season. Not to mention, I work seven days a week...and God blesses me mightily.
I'm with you. I'm all for religious freedom, but when you commit to a team you commit to their rules -- which clearly stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty. I'm sorry but it really pisses me off reading where people (once again) know the rules, break the rules, then seek redress.
How dare a Christian or a Jew actually consider the solemn obligations of their religious observance around which revolves the eternal fate of their soul to actually be a higher obligation than playing an optional team sport so they can help The Team get a chance to win some crappy plastic trophy with hastily engraved lettering in a church youth league! Now you want to prevent those faithful and committed Christians (and Jews) from suing their way to victory over the Sabbath. Well, these fine young Adventists intend to win that trophy and still go to heaven to hang out at the bosom of Abraham with Lazarus. The rest of you will be hanging out with the Rich Man in hell, begging them to send Lazarus to warn your brethren not to play team sports on Sundays.
Yay, heathen though I may be, rules are rules.
You're saying you want to disqualify athletes on the basis of religious practice. It is interesting to see a sabbatarian court case. In 2019. With two Adventist athletes. The Chung family may be on the verge of setting vital legal precedent.
I don't want to, but they knew the rules when they signed up. Let's keep in mind, SHE refused to play. It's not as though the WIAA didn't allow her to play on the basis of her religious practice.
No, the WIAA decided to schedule games to punish the participation of these athletes who the WIAA had cause to know would not participate on their sabbath. The WIAA could have scheduled around these conflicts but they chose exclusion and persecution, possibly depriving these athletes of a chance to earn a scholarship. Surprising how anti-Christian some Christians suddenly are when you pit something they actually like (high school sports) against something they don't really like, like some cruddy old 4th Commandment that stretches on through multiple verses about keeping the sabbath holy and no dodging the rule cleverly. So should this rule you like requiring participation on a sabbath apply to Christians only? Should it apply to Muslims? How about Jews? Would you allow Jews to keep the 4th commandment and not punish them for it?
Oh? They said that? Or are you just making shit up again? "So should this rule you like requiring participation on a sabbath apply to Christians only?" She wasn't "required" to do shit. She chose not to participate, knowing full well she would be disqualified. The rules were written long before she signed up. They apply to everyone. She wanted the league to make an exception just for her.
Isn't it time that we just rewrite that pesky Fourth Commandment? How about: "Forget the Sabbath. And don't you dare to keep it holy." Seems to be about what most of you think about the 4th commandment and any idea of keeping a sabbath holy (whatever that entails). I find it interesting, how people apply or refuse to even acknowledge these supposed landmark ideas about religion in the Jewish or Christian context. You know who is going to really like these two Adventists? Jewish lawyers and judges and Jewish legal scholars. For obvious reasons. I would not bet against the chances for the two Adventists to make Saturday a more respected sabbath under the law than Sunday is at present. I, of course, am cheering for the Adventists, those two lone witnesses for holiness and religious observation.
Other than these two Adventists, how many people has this rule actually affected? Hundreds of Christians? Thousands? How many people, other than these two, will a rule change affect? Any? You are turning this issue into a grand theological debate when it only affect two fanatics who interpret the fourth commandment differently than everyone else.
I see. So, in your opinion, it is only "fanatics" that would insist on observing the 4th commandment in any meaningful way instead of dismissing their religious obligations entirely so they can play some crappy bush league sport at which they have a 0.1% chance of ever getting a scholarship, let alone make a living at? I liked you better when you stuck to simple copsucking as a hobby.
I don't call a tennis tournament "meaningful". They insist on changing the rules of a crappy bush league sport which affected nobody before they showed up and will affect nobody when they leave.
Or so you hope. You fear that this might spread or you wouldn't be so vehement against these Adventist commandment fanatics. You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends while the churches continue playing their puny little league sports on Sundays? Making the churches the most unholy commandment-breakers in American society? That outcome is entirely possible. I think you know it.
If it spread and more and more players refused to play because of their devotion to their faith, then perhaps the WIAA would be open to a rule change. That's how things used to be done. "You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends … …" You say that like it's a good thing. Two people, for purely selfish reasons, changing the rules for participants from 800 statewide schools through threat of legal action just so they can play under their interpretation of the fourth commandment.
And good for them. They adhere to their religion. In much the same way that Abraham, for purely selfish reasons, adhered to his new religion. In much the same way that Jesus and the Apostle Paul, for purely selfish reasons, adhered to their religious tenets. You can apply "purely selfish" to almost any religious figure who ever made any history at all. And it is generally the case that those who do stand up for their "purely selfish reasons" are despised in their own era by a majority of the public. And this case is no different. You underestimate the power of this case. It has genuine disruptive potential. And you just can't stand the thought of it. I'd like to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court and set national precedents.
Supreme Court, I expect, will uphold freedom of sport over against enforced respect for anybody's "Sabbath".
You can't be serious. Schools are closed on Saturdays and Sundays. They have no curricular activities on either Saturday or Sunday in this country. They may assign homework but that could be done in school, riding a schoolbus, on the non-sabbath weekend day for sabbatarians and on either or both days for kids who aren't religious. The schools have no right to intrude upon students' lives and their religious practice on the weekend when the schools are officially and legally closed. The Court would rule for the Adventists decisively on the basis that the school made no attempt to accommodate their schedule of extracurricular sports toward the schedule of sabbath observance on weekends when the schools are officially closed to all students. And they are discriminating against Saturday sabbath keepers like Adventists and Jews (there are still a few Jews on the Court) but not discriminating against Sunday sabbath keepers. Nor did they discriminate against both types of sabbath keepers equally. Any good lawyer could drive a truck bomb through the school's legal defense. I think it would lead to a unanimous Court verdict in favor of the Adventists. Unfortunately, the sports leagues now have a heads-up on this issue and have seen the result of the first court case and so they may try to tiptoe around it a bit, fearing litigation and attracting some plaintiffs who will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe you just don't like treating all students equally, regardless of religion. Or maybe you think the current system of discriminating against Saturday sabbatarians works for you and others like you so you don't want any changes. I can't stop laughing at all the hijinks and weird dodges my own alma mater came up with in recent years, trying to deny that they'd run out of having enough boys to play 11-man football. In the end, it's been an utter humiliation for them. And they've discovered what the other small towns around them actually think of them. It's a comedy gold mine there in Hooterville.
Saturday sports have been a part of the American scene for a very, very long time. A Supreme Court composed entirely of Catholics and secular Jews, is not going alter American life to that extent in order to serve the religious hobbyhorses of some fringe nuts.
Actually, they've done that more times than you could count, most recently in their radical sodomy marriage decision. The Court, over a period of decades, changed sodomy from illegal in almost all 50 states to an institution of marriage with all the attendant legal protections in all 50 states. It makes me wonder if you're really a lawyer if you can say that with a straight face and expect someone to take you seriously. The Court is not particularly afraid of upending civic institutions, even those whose origins reach back thousands of years to the founding of the first civilizations.
Because homosexual sex should never have been illegal in the first place, and as the movement to liberate people picked up steam, the religious tried to hold the line, and built up quite a political following, that had to be shoved aside, and was.
I've begun to think that the current strong downturn in church attendance was a result of young people holding a grudge against the various organized tax-free religious outlets with their laws favoring slavery, outlawing miscegenation or the freeing of slaves, against sodomy, against tattoos, etc. In fact, I've considered whether the big craze for tattoos among Christians is a rebellion against its virtual prohibition in Christian circles before 25 years ago. Nowadays, Christian young people are a lot more likely to go to a tattoo shop than a Christian bookstore. And you see Christian family men, mainstays in their church, who drink Scotch and smoke cigars. My landlord is a guy like that, 3 nice kids and a pretty wife, a veteran and a go-getter. I helped him do some repair work to a porch and when he got done, I pulled out an old bottle of Scotch (that I inherited) and we took a few small shots, sitting on the front porch. Just then, his wife and 3 kids turned the corner down the block and I saw them and quickly said, "Maybe I should take these inside." He just said, "It's no problem." I guess it's good that we drank up the Scotch that day because the next day he was doing a little finish work on the porch and his minister came by to talk church business with him privately. Believe me, a generation ago, none of that would have been happening. Hell, I think the Baptists actually speak to each other in liquor stores now and even make love standing up (to remind you of a few old-time jokes on the subject). The churches are paying the price for their past excesses as enacted into public laws. It may finish off the churches in America, just as it largely did in Europe. I've considered that this might be a temporary anti-religious cultural turn, something seen in many centuries though not often well-known even in Christian circles. But sometimes a religion becomes thoroughly discredited by its own record and by its own standards. And so I suspect that American Christianity is in a long downward spiral. It will get much worse for the churches before it gets any better. If it's any comfort, I notice that Judaism and other religions have the same problem. Hindus and Muslims are the next who will have to deal with it, largely among their native-born offspring.
It's why I have such contempt for them and have no time or patience for an anything they say. I know God through miracle, I recognize God in Jesus. I despise the Christian Ch Churches because every time I speak to them, they ignore what I have to say ab about Jesus to go on a Ch Churches because every time I speak to them, they ignore what I have to say ab about Jesus to go on a tear about some stupid made up shit they came up with th that Jesus didn't say. My rejection of them is CATEGORICAL. They DISGUST me. I I do not see them as agents of good, but as agents of oppression who oc occasionally do something I I do not see them as agents of good, but as agents of oppression who oc occasionally do something good, like a blind squirrel finding a nut. I hold the Catholic Church is about the same light, but Catholics don't press their religion on me and I like to sing. The pretty churches and music are nice - for the same reason art museums and European cities are nice: it's an art art form. (So when others scream "idolatry" I've already written all such scre screamers art art form. (So when others scream "idolatry" I've already written all such scre screamers off as bad guys and don't listen to a word they say, but when the Opus Opus Dei crowd get all strange and technical ("Jesus is present in the euch eucharist, but he is no longer present 15 seconds after you swallow him") I roll roll my eyes also. Religious nonsense irritates me. God doesn't. Only very rarely do the twain me meet in my mind. The Churches in Europe died because "When Britain first at heaven's command arose from out the azure main..." and "God and my right!", and "Error has no rights!", and "One faith, one law, one God, one King!", and "Gott Mit Uns!", and "G and "God Save the Tsar!", etc., etc. Lather, rinse, repeat in every great na and "G and "God Save the Tsar!", etc., etc. Lather, rinse, repeat in every great nation nation and paltry principality all over Europe. Now have these nations, eve nation nation and paltry principality all over Europe. Now have these nations, every one pr one protected by God, hurl themselves in isometric battle to the death in W one pr one protected by God, hurl themselves in isometric battle to the death in World War I, War I, and then do it all over again, and by the end of it, people don't b War I, War I, and then do it all over again, and by the end of it, people don't believ believe those lies anymore...and why SHOULD they? (They shouldn't.) Hearing me rage about religion is pointless. Who cares, besides me, what I th think? Nobody. Christianity is dying out, rapidly, everywhere. The only thing that can save it is a laser-beam focus on Christ, just him, because he is the only think wo worthwhile in the whole religion. The men have been murderous shitheads when th they have wielded power. When they just wielded the word, all the way back to Pa Paul, James, Jude and John, they wrote such a confusing and contra Pa Paul, James, Jude and John, they wrote such a confusing and contradictory mess of of letters that, frankly, one can believe anything one pleases, i of of letters that, frankly, one can believe anything one pleases, including a bu bunch of things that contradict Jesus. Given that "Christ"-ianity is supposed to be all about CHRIST, I take it that it makes the most sense to listen to HIM, and to reject every doctrine, every belief, everything, that contradicts anything he said. This means discarding a great deal of the Bible, which drives idolators whose idol is the Bible insane. No skin off my nose. I used to enjoy fighting these battles, but then, Christianity as an organized religion used to be big and important. Now, it's falling apart. Thanks to Mexican immigration the background radiation of religion - the religion of the lower classes - is becoming Catholic, and that I find friendly and warm, unlike the prickly old Protestantisms that I never liked but had to deal with. As they die off, I don't - and that suits me. This is why I think you're off the mark on this Adventist thing. Yes, the Supreme Court DID defend the Catholics' right to be Catholic, back in the day, and did defend freedom of conscience. But no, the Supreme Court has not been in the business of disrupting the society left and right. I see a clear, logical arc in their decisions over history - and given that I'm a status quo centrist, I find myself in agreement with most of what they did. The institutions of America generally do what I want them to do and expect them to do, because the overall temper of this land, written large, is very much like me, and very much NOT like the crabby insane Protty fringe (no matter how much they scream and bleat, to themselves, that THEY founded it and it was all about THEM back in the day). (Truth is, they LED the founding of things, but as soon as they behaved stupidly, as religious fanatics do, that was the end of much of their power: Massachussetts' religious establishment was HEAVILY limited after the Salem witch trial lunacy - MOST people came to America se seeking economic opportunity. Religious freedom is nice, but once religion st starts getting overmighty, Americans pull off fangs, wings and limbs of the re religion and reduce it to a social function, because Americans are not for the mo most part religious fanatics. mo most part religious fanatics. Gay rights were pushed ahead by the Supreme Court because it was a matter of making a broad, stubborn, backwards-thinking quasi religious society accept what what it did not want to: the freedom of secular people to have sex with whom they they please, and to marr they they please, and to marry whom they please. And the more the religious tried to u to use levers of power, to u to use levers of power, the more the court made the point of tearing off wings and and fangs and limbs un and and fangs and limbs until the religion was, once again, neutered. The wedding cake issue cut the other way. There, aggressive gays were trying to to use the law as a club to impose on a private cake artist doing something sp specifically against his will. The Court, unsurprisingly, stepped in and st stopped that nonsense. So, an Adventist - member of a fringe cult - has decided s/he "can't" break sa sabbath because of a sports events, and demands that a whole aspect of American cu culture be chan cu culture be changed to suit her fringe. This is unreasonable. It was not unreasonable for blacks to demand absolutely equal rights, and that businesses have to serve them. It was not unreasonable for gays to demand the right to sex, and ultimately to form unions that allow them old age protections of married people. It was unreasonable, however, that gays demand to make non-gay religious gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes. And it's unreasonable for a fringe cult member to expect the whole sports culture of culture of society to cease because of that cult's peculiar beliefs. It's not reasonable reasonable by my lights, and my lights seem to line up very well with the Centrist st Centrist status quo, which the courts have upheld. gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes. And it's unreasonable for a fringe cult member to expect the whole sports cu culture of society to cease because of that cult's peculiar beliefs. It's not re r re reasonable by my lights, and my lights seem to line up very well with the Ce Centrist status quo, which the courts have upheld. There are different views of right and wrong.
Religion is a great thing until someone decides to organize it. They only say that to keep the kids from thinking about what your body turns the wafer into in 24 hours or so. For such questions, you need stone-faced nuns with a yardstick so that such questions don't get asked. At least, not more than once. I think it was a long generational process that was instigated by the huge losses Europe experienced in the two world wars. They were bled out. It caused the younger generations to doubt everything element of European traditions as matter of habit. It was a death by a thousand doubts (more like a thousand million doubts). The ancien regime truly died at last and that is part of post-modernist thinking. They're only nominally Catholic. And even less so every day they spend in America. I think you do know this. As for not liking Prot pricks, well, who can blame you? Other than the fabled Prot work ethic, what has it produced really? Nothing of any particular consequence. Even the work ethic is overrated. How can you type that? The Court has spent the last century constantly disrupting American society in decision after decision. It has been a century of unbridled radical court activism, constituting a 9-member super-legislature on the Court. No one can seriously look at the changes in American life instigated by the Supreme Court over the last century and try to portray them as "status quo centrists". Not without people starting to giggle. It was two Adventists. The first played the previous year and observed the sabbath and couldn't complete the scheduled matches but did raise objections to their scheduling, establishing the claim to complaints received by the WIAA. The younger Adventist went to court to demand that the school make reasonable accommodation to allow Saturday sabbatarians to participate before the younger Adventist was also forced to make the choice between religion (First Amendment) and mere weekend sports that are entirely extracurricular. The court found, exercising its due diligence, that the Adventists were correct and that the WIAA could have scheduled the matches outside the weekend sabbath days. And that is why the WIAA lost and why they would continue to lose if they didn't have lawyers to tell them to shut up and not appeal the case to a higher court where they would lose again and set an even more damaging precedent. The case itself wasn't that complex: don't stack weekend extracurricular sports events, held when school is officially closed, against the free exercise of religion, especially not in public schools funded and regulated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX from 1972. I'm not sure that even a private school could get away with it but any public school league would get in hot water quickly. Which they did at the hands of these two bloodthirsty Adventists who were taking no prisoners. So it's fine for them to get married as long as they don't say "Bake me that cake, bitch!" to some bakery employee. Well, okay. I thought that was the more fun part. I do notice they don't try to pull this crap on any Muslim bakeries. Yeah, there they aren't so brave and sassy, are they? I thought maybe you were dictating by voice your posts on a cellphone or something. I wasn't sure because even posting like that wouldn't result in these rather awful posts you've been making in recent weeks. Your prose quality has nosedived this last month. Surely you're not posting from a desktop computer, are you? If so, you need to replace it or fix it. It's not getting any better and you are a knowledge worker with a need for a reliable working computer. Your thought process should not be interrupted by the need to keep re-editing stuff. That was not the issue before the court. The Adventists never asked the court to do that at all. I'm trying to have the last word or at least a quip but I'm drawing a complete blank.
No one can seriously look at the changes in American life instigated by the Supreme Court over the last century and try to portray them as "status quo centrists". Not without people starting to giggle. Give me your list.
Yeah, probably not. Just thinking about typing such a list makes my fingers hurt. There is nothing moderate or centrist or collegial or consistent or principled or courageous about this Court. When will you admit it, when they legalize polygamy and group marriage?
There are no replies to Comment # 149. End Trace Mode for Comment # 149.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latesta Protestant denomination that observes Sabbath on Saturday as recorded in the Bible, sued the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA)
#14. To: watchman (#1)
I can't get behind this.
#19. To: misterwhite, redleghunter (#14)
I'm with you. I'm all for religious freedom, but when you commit to a team you commit to their rules -- which clearly stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty.
#24. To: Tooconservative (#19)
#31. To: misterwhite (#24)
Yay, heathen though I may be, rules are rules.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
You're saying you want to disqualify athletes on the basis of religious practice.
#35. To: misterwhite (#32)
Let's keep in mind, SHE refused to play. It's not as though the WIAA didn't allow her to play on the basis of her religious practice.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#35)
No, the WIAA decided to schedule games to punish the participation of these athletes who the WIAA had cause to know would not participate on their sabbath.
#42. To: misterwhite, watchman (#41)
#44. To: Tooconservative (#42)
Seems to be about what most of you think about the 4th commandment and any idea of keeping a sabbath holy (whatever that entails).
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
You are turning this issue into a grand theological debate when it only affect two fanatics who interpret the fourth commandment differently than everyone else.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#46)
it is only "fanatics" that would insist on observing the 4th commandment in any meaningful way
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
They insist on changing the rules of a crappy bush league sport which affected nobody before they showed up and will affect nobody when they leave.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)
You fear that this might spread or you wouldn't be so vehement against these Adventist commandment fanatics.
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
Two people, for purely selfish reasons, changing the rules for participants from 800 statewide schools through threat of legal action just so they can play under their interpretation of the fourth commandment.
#99. To: Tooconservative (#52)
I'd like to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court and set national precedents.
#104. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#99)
Supreme Court, I expect, will uphold freedom of sport over against enforced respect for anybody's "Sabbath".
#107. To: Tooconservative (#104)
Any good lawyer could drive a truck bomb through the school's legal defense. I think it would lead to a unanimous Court verdict in favor of the Adventists.
#108. To: Vicomte13 (#107)
Saturday sports have been a part of the American scene for a very, very long time. A Supreme Court composed entirely of Catholics and secular Jews, is not going alter American life to that extent in order to serve the religious hobbyhorses of some fringe nuts.
#127. To: Tooconservative (#108)
The Court, over a period of decades, changed sodomy from illegal in almost all 50 states to an institution of marriage with all the attendant legal protections in all 50 states.
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#127)
(Edited)
Because homosexual sex should never have been illegal in the first place, and as the movement to liberate people picked up steam, the religious tried to hold the line, and built up quite a political following, that had to be shoved aside, and was.
#137. To: Tooconservative (#131)
The churches are paying the price for their past excesses as enacted into public laws. It may finish off the churches in America, just as it largely did in Europe.
#141. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
It's why I have such contempt for them and have no time or patience for an anything they say.
but when the Opus Opus Dei crowd get all strange and technical ("Jesus is present in the eucharist, but he is no longer present 15 seconds after you swallow him") I roll roll my eyes also.
The Churches in Europe died because "When Britain first at heaven's command arose from out the azure main..." and "God and my right!", and "Error has no rights!", and "One faith, one law, one God, one King!", and "Gott Mit Uns!", and "God Save the Tsar!", etc., etc. Lather, rinse, repeat in every great nation nation and paltry principality all over Europe.
Thanks to Mexican immigration the background radiation of religion - the religion of the lower classes - is becoming Catholic, and that I find friendly and warm, unlike the prickly old Protestantisms that I never liked but had to deal with. As they die off, I don't - and that suits me.
This is why I think you're off the mark on this Adventist thing. Yes, the Supreme Court DID defend the Catholics' right to be Catholic, back in the day, and did defend freedom of conscience. But no, the Supreme Court has not been in the business of disrupting the society left and right.
So, an Adventist - member of a fringe cult - has decided s/he "can't" break sa sabbath because of a sports events, and demands that a whole aspect of American cu culture be chan cu culture be changed to suit her fringe. This is unreasonable.
It was not unreasonable for blacks to demand absolutely equal rights, and that businesses have to serve them. It was not unreasonable for gays to demand the right to sex, and ultimately to form unions that allow them old age protections of married people. It was unreasonable, however, that gays demand to make non-gay religious gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes.
gay religious cake artists decorate their cakes.
And it's unreasonable for a fringe cult member to expect the whole sports culture of society to cease because of that cult's peculiar beliefs.
There are different views of right and wrong.
#145. To: Tooconservative (#141)
How can you type that? The Court has spent the last century constantly disrupting American society in decision after decision. It has been a century of unbridled radical court activism, constituting a 9-member super-legislature on the Court.
#149. To: Vicomte13 (#145)
Give me your list.
Replies to Comment # 149.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]