NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9259979/


They want the judge to decide if the building has ghosts and they want the judge to violate the defendant's religious rights.

If I were the judge I'd say ha..hahahaha

Sounds like bollocks to me. I'm for religious freedom and all, but if his religion forbids him from involvement with demons there'd surely be some way to get rid of demons or ghosts. He refused the roman catholic exorcism. What do people do in his religion, just abandon a building whenever someone thinks they see a ghost?

Best news story since the one where an old lady was arrested when she kept calling 911 because the pizza delivery boy was running late. She was charged with misusing 911 repeatedly and also assault and resisting arrest when she bit the officer trying to arrest her.

Sounds like bollocks to me. I'm for religious freedom and all, but if his religion forbids him from involvement with demons there'd surely be some way to get rid of demons or ghosts. He refused the roman catholic exorcism. What do people do in his religion, just abandon a building whenever someone thinks they see a ghost?
IF the judge is sane, he will see that religious freedom takes precedence in this case. They can't force the couple to move into a building if it violates their religious beliefs.

IF the judge is sane, he will see that religious freedom takes precedence in this case. They can't force the couple to move into a building if it violates their religious beliefs.
They can't force them to move in. But there's a lease and a contract that they signed into.

It'll perhaps be a matter of whether the restaurant people knew about the ghosts before signing the lease or if the landlords had tried to hide the supernatural events.

In any case, that's a great way to get rid of a Jehova Witness that I didn't know about. Tell them you have ghosts in your house.

I think someone should just go and exorcise the building and only tell the owners afterwards.i dont see this breaking any laws,as i doubt there are any exorcism laws in america(or any country for that matter) and i dont think there is anything about exorcism in their property laws.

If they're harmless, then the people should suck it up, and move in and find some "legitimate" exorcism rite according to their faith. Either that, or find another place to use, and pay off the lease to the haunted place. Honestly, any smart business person would capitalize on a location frequented by harmless ghosts, I think.

Really, they should've asked about such things if it would cause such a problem for them, before they signed the contract.

If I were the judge I'd say ha..hahahaha


That or smile and say BOO! :D

Religious freedom comes first, they shouldn't be forced to do anything.

Religious freedom comes first, they shouldn't be forced to do anything.

Call it null and void and inflict a fine upon who was wrong... Though for no reason at all can you use "there's a ghost in my house and they didn't tell us of it" can be used to get out of an undesirable situation or place. That's crazy.

In any case, that's a great way to get rid of a Jehova Witness that I didn't know about. Tell them you have ghosts in your house.

That is a brilliant idea! :p

I've heard that if you say you're a mormon and invite them in to discuss their beliefs they run away but I suspect that's an Urban Myth, could anyone confirm/debunk that?

God, I think if I abused my religion like that, as well as turning down a possible solution to the objection in question, I'd deserve the friggin lawsuit.

Simonist']God, I think if I abused my religion like that, as well as turning down a possible solution to the objection in question, I'd deserve the friggin lawsuit.
The right to religious freedom takes precedence over the right to make a profit and even supersedes contracts. It can only be violated in extreme circumstances such as a threat to national security or the impending death of people. Neither of which applies in this case.

IF the judge is sane, he will see that religious freedom takes precedence in this case. They can't force the couple to move into a building if it violates their religious beliefs.
They have a contract. You can't get out of a contract because of religious beliefs. They have to pay their contracted rent. What are religious beliefs if you aren't willing to suffer for them.

The right to religious freedom takes precedence over the right to make a profit and even supersedes contracts. It can only be violated in extreme circumstances such as a threat to national security or the impending death of people. Neither of which applies in this case.
Nope, you are wrong. There are tons of ways in which religious freedom can be limited. The Supreme Court has ruled several different times that religious freedom does not give you the right to break or ignore the law.

"There's no ghost, congrat on the new home! Heres a $10 gift card from Home Depot"

Why waste time looking? Just tell them theres nothing there..

Nope, you are wrong. There are tons of ways in which religious freedom can be limited. The Supreme Court has ruled several different times that religious freedom does not give you the right to break or ignore the law.
Actually there are several cases where the Supreme Court has said that exemptions to the law must be granted on religious grounds. The case of Native Americans and Peyote comes to mind. It's illegal to use Peyote because it's a controlled substance but native americans are exempt from the law due to religious reasons.

"There's no ghost, congrat on the new home! Heres a $10 gift card from Home Depot"

Why waste time looking? Just tell them theres nothing there..
You can be sued for that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9259979/


They want the judge to decide if the building has ghosts and they want the judge to violate the defendant's religious rights.
Only thing that surprises me about this is that it isn't happening in California. I guess there are wackos on the East coast, too.

There are buildings that have been legally declared haunted.

Actually there are several cases where the Supreme Court has said that exemptions to the law must be granted on religious grounds. The case of Native Americans and Peyote comes to mind. It's illegal to use Peyote because it's a controlled substance but native americans are exempt from the law due to religious reasons.
aCtually,the most recent supreme Court case on this was Oregon v. Smith which said that the states could outlaw peyote use. Some states do allow it though.

The right to religious freedom takes precedence over the right to make a profit and even supersedes contracts.

Actually untrue. As long as a law is applied neutrally, without regard to religion, it does not violate the 1st Amendment. Contract law is applied the same to everyone, regardless of their religion.

Meanwhile, the religion of these people will not be violated if they are forced to honor their contract, by either paying rent for the period of time for which they signed a lease, or by paying whatever fine is incurred by breaking the contract. According to the article, their religion is against dealing with demons and spirits, not upholding the agreements they willingly enter into.

Actually there are several cases where the Supreme Court has said that exemptions to the law must be granted on religious grounds. The case of Native Americans and Peyote comes to mind. It's illegal to use Peyote because it's a controlled substance but native americans are exempt from the law due to religious reasons.

Wow, you really are misinformed. The court has repeatedly upheld the idea that a blanket ban on peyote can be enforced on Native Americans living/working outside of reservations, regardless of their religious beliefs.

If and only if a law is specifically tailored to exclude religion use, and the law must state any religious use, not just Native American religious use, then they will be exempted. Of course, that isn't really an exemption, since the law itself allows for it.

aCtually,the most recent supreme Court case on this was Oregon v. Smith which said that the states could outlaw peyote use. Some states do allow it though.
Not for Indian tribes.

Actually untrue. As long as a law is applied neutrally, without regard to religion, it does not violate the 1st Amendment. Contract law is applied the same to everyone, regardless of their religion.

Meanwhile, the religion of these people will not be violated if they are forced to honor their contract, by either paying rent for the period of time for which they signed a lease, or by paying whatever fine is incurred by breaking the contract. According to the article, their religion is against dealing with demons and spirits, not upholding the agreements they willingly enter into.



Wow, you really are misinformed. The court has repeatedly upheld the idea that a blanket ban on peyote can be enforced on Native Americans living/working outside of reservations, regardless of their religious beliefs.

If and only if a law is specifically tailored to exclude religion use, and the law must state any religious use, not just Native American religious use, then they will be exempted. Of course, that isn't really an exemption, since the law itself allows for it.

only in cases where peyote is not central to religion. In religions in which it plays a central and sacred role, the use must be allowed unhindered.

Well, they cant be forced to live there but they can be forced to pay the rent for it.

Not for Indian tribes.
Did you read the last few posts? Peyote can only not be outlawed in reservations, because of the few remaining treaties that the U.S. didn't break.

Did you read the last few posts? Peyote can only not be outlawed in reservations, because of the few remaining treaties that the U.S. didn't break.
Unless the last few posts were made by licensed attorneys or lawmakers, they are just personal political opinions with no bearing on facts.

In fact, the US Constitution states that Indian tribes are soverign even when they are not on reservations. In fact it does not even mention reservations nor provide for them. It just says Indian tribes are soverign and that states cannot make laws regarding them. Only the feds decide what laws the Indians have to abide by. Course, the feds have decided that there are some laws the Indians do have to abide by but peyote is not one of them.

Anytime you are dealing with an Indian you dealing with a member of a soverign nation.

only in cases where peyote is not central to religion. In religions in which it plays a central and sacred role, the use must be allowed unhindered.
Here's what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter.

The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Pp. 876-890.

(a) Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 -167. The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that [494 U.S. 872, 873] Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections. See, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 -307; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 . Pp. 876-882.

(b) Respondents' claim for a religious exemption from the Oregon law cannot be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in the line of cases following Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 -403, whereby governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a "compelling governmental interest." That test was developed in a context - unemployment compensation eligibility rules - that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by "compelling governmental interest" on the basis of religious belief. Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699 . Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required. Pp. 882-890.

Things get a bit more complicated because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which MAY require the states to allow some peyote use (it's a good question and has, as far as I know, not been tested yet.) However, the law only requires that the government have a "compelling government interest" in a neutral law that restricts religious freedom. Ensuring performance of contracts is certainly a compelling government interest. Imagine what would happen if you could back out of freely entered contracts because of religious beliefs. What a huge mess. The religious freedom argument here doesn't fly, especially since it is based on allegations that are by definition unproveable.

Believe it or not, there have been cases dealing with "haunted" houses before. I think an argument could be made if this were a notoriously "haunted" building and the seller had known and not disclosed this fact.

If and only if a law is specifically tailored to exclude religion use, and the law must state any religious use, not just Native American religious use, then they will be exempted. Of course, that isn't really an exemption, since the law itself allows for it.
Well, the Federal Peyote law actually specifies the Native American Church. Different states have different versions of the law though.

One way or another, the judge will side with the ghosts; Possession is nine-tenths of the law. :D

I personally plan to build a compound, and a fence comprised of dog bones.

I just love border collies.