Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs, opp at the Political Forums; Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs, opponents say in new court filing, which initiative supporters call ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2018, 06:14 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,485
Thanks: 10,065
Thanked 15,213 Times in 9,221 Posts
Post Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs, opp

Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,
opponents say in new court filing, which initiative supporters call a ‘Hail Mary’


Quote:
Members of the campaign against Utah’s medical marijuana initiative filed a lawsuit in state court Wednesday, seeking to remove the issue from the November ballot.

It is their second lawsuit intending to block voters from weighing in on legalizing the federally illegal plant. Proponents of the measure called the latest filing a “wacky attempt” to stop Utahns from voting on it.

In the complaint, opponents of Proposition 2 — which would legalize marijuana for people with an array of health conditions — said the ballot initiative would tread on their freedom of religion.

The group says the measure would violate the religious beliefs of Walter J. Plumb, an attorney and active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is the primary financier of the opposition campaign.

The lawsuit takes issue with a provision of the ballot measure that would prevent landlords from not renting to a medical marijuana cardholder, saying that could create an issue of Mormon property owners being forced into renting to people who use cannabis.

Plumb’s “religious beliefs include a strict adherence to a code of health which precludes the consumption and possession of mind-altering drugs, substances and chemicals, which includes cannabis and its various derivatives,” the complaint states.

The group cites a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a Colorado bakery owner who declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, saying it would go against his religious beliefs. (The baker won and filed a similar suit Tuesday.)
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...cal-marijuana/
However, that particular case was “decided on a technicality;” specifically that “the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unfairly biased against Phillips.” As most sane people and the Court acknowledged, “the ruling did not directly give people a license to discriminate against LGBTQ people based on their religious belief.”

As bad as refusing to provide a service based on objections borne of religion is, and it is vile, the idea of using religious freedom to prevent an entire state’s voters from exercising their right to weigh in on a legal ballot measure is beyond the pale; but it should have been expected. This monstrous idea of using religious freedom as a cudgel against non-compliance in America’s lurch toward theocracy has grown to the point that maybe now the people will comprehend that no American is safe.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...igious-freedom

If there would be such a "religious" right to refusal to rent (as described in the article), then that specific aspect would be imposed upon. Not the ballot initiative.

And even then, attempting to quote that ruling completely ignores the fact that the ruling involved was resolved based on the specific case situation whereby that specific case was shown to have prejudice against that specific shop owner. That ruling did not provide any sort of broad precedent, and that ruling's statements explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of that type of underlying law itself.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:33 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 77,077
Thanks: 54,268
Thanked 25,778 Times in 18,364 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Wonder if Utah considers it mind altering when Mormons cross the Nevada border and slosh beer while playing the slots.
__________________
Mueller is good at witch hunting. Its raining witches. America is GREAT.

Doreen E
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:00 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,167
Thanks: 807
Thanked 1,550 Times in 1,055 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
... the fact that the ruling involved was resolved based on the specific case situation whereby that specific case was shown to have prejudice against that specific shop owner. That ruling did not provide any sort of broad precedent, and that ruling's statements explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of that type of underlying law itself.
You've really tried to beat this drum on this forum over and over re. that case--clearly there's something about it that makes you feel threatened. The truth is, you're claim that the case sets no broad precedent is laughable, because there is no such thing as a supreme court case that does NOT create broad precedent. The precedent in this case may indeed not be something that benefits the Mormons in their argument, but there is certainly a precedent now set in terms of cases amounting to prejudice against religion. Now legal teams will have to be more careful to not take up a cause that is really prejudicial at its core, and rightfully so. This is a good thing. In other words, it is impossible for a SCOTUS case to not create precedent; that's the nature of cases and judgements.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2018, 02:28 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,485
Thanks: 10,065
Thanked 15,213 Times in 9,221 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You've really tried to beat this drum on this forum over and over re. that case--clearly there's something about it that makes you feel threatened.

What I find truly amusing about this comment is that if you look at the right and say "Shariah law", you'll see people who "feel threatened".

For my side, I wouldn't post such stuff if it weren't for people of religion trying to push this stuff.


And your above comment is ad hominem. Trying to make me and your imagination on my feelings on the issue as the focus when they aren't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
The truth is, you're claim that the case sets no broad precedent is laughable, because there is no such thing as a supreme court case that does NOT create broad precedent.
I invite the viewing public to note exactly what I said instead of Joe Shoe's lazy recounting of it.
I was clearly referencing a broad precedent against business discrimination laws which is what the article's comment was about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
The precedent in this case may indeed not be something that benefits the Mormons in their argument, but there is certainly a precedent now set in terms of cases amounting to prejudice against religion.
No.
The case that was being referenced had clear examples of how the people enforcing the law displayed prejudice against the group in question.
What the case being referenced did not show is how the law itself was innately prejudiced. In fact (as I explained), "...that ruling's statements explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of that type of underlying law itself."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Now legal teams will have to be more careful to not take up a cause that is really prejudicial at its core, and rightfully so.
"be more careful"?

They simply need to enforce the law equally and without prejudice.
Which is what the vast majority of these cases have been doing all along.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 08-20-2018 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2018, 06:52 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 11,785
Thanks: 9,602
Thanked 7,776 Times in 4,978 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,
opponents say in new court filing, which initiative supporters call a ‘Hail Mary’



https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...cal-marijuana/
However, that particular case was “decided on a technicality;” specifically that “the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unfairly biased against Phillips.” As most sane people and the Court acknowledged, “the ruling did not directly give people a license to discriminate against LGBTQ people based on their religious belief.”

As bad as refusing to provide a service based on objections borne of religion is, and it is vile, the idea of using religious freedom to prevent an entire state’s voters from exercising their right to weigh in on a legal ballot measure is beyond the pale; but it should have been expected. This monstrous idea of using religious freedom as a cudgel against non-compliance in America’s lurch toward theocracy has grown to the point that maybe now the people will comprehend that no American is safe.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...igious-freedom

If there would be such a "religious" right to refusal to rent (as described in the article), then that specific aspect would be imposed upon. Not the ballot initiative.

And even then, attempting to quote that ruling completely ignores the fact that the ruling involved was resolved based on the specific case situation whereby that specific case was shown to have prejudice against that specific shop owner. That ruling did not provide any sort of broad precedent, and that ruling's statements explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of that type of underlying law itself.
While I don't have the time at this moment to go hunting the facts, I have several questions you may already have the answer to.

Do these same landlords do drug tests on prospective tenants? By what legal basis can they do so? If the landlords already have rules regarding 'smoking' on the premises, then ANY smoking would be a violation of said rules.

As you said, they are taking one case, and trying to make it fit on another, and likely won't succeed.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2018, 02:20 AM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,167
Thanks: 807
Thanked 1,550 Times in 1,055 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

What I find truly amusing about this comment is that if you look at the right and say "Shariah law", you'll see people who "feel threatened".
Yeah, because what I pointed out that you feel threatened over is even remotely comparable to a a governing culture that forces women to wear coverings, throws homosexuals from tall buildings as a matter of law, and allowing domestic violence against women.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
For my side, I wouldn't post such stuff if it weren't for people of religion trying to push this stuff.
Uh huh ...
pull the other one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I invite the viewing public to note exactly what I said instead of Joe Shoe's lazy recounting of it.
I was clearly referencing a broad precedent against business discrimination laws which is what the article's comment was about.
It doesn't matter, because since SCOTUS cases ALWAYS set precedent, any individual 'narrowing down' that you do doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The case that was being referenced had clear examples of how the people enforcing the law displayed prejudice against the group in question.
Yep. That doesn't refute or disprove anything I just said in the least.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2018, 10:52 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,485
Thanks: 10,065
Thanked 15,213 Times in 9,221 Posts
Post Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Yeah, because what I pointed out that you feel threatened over is even remotely comparable to a a governing culture that forces women to wear coverings, throws homosexuals from tall buildings as a matter of law, and allowing domestic violence against women.
You jump to extremist ideology when U.S. Muslim Americans are typically nowhere near that.
US Muslims are more accepting of homosexuality than White evangelicals
So few Muslim women wear the burqa in Europe that banning it is a waste of time
American Muslims: Identity, assimilation and community | Pew Research Center


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Uh huh ...
pull the other one.
Sometimes your responses are so banal it's sad. Specifically when all you have is disbelief of my stated position.
Especially here in that common sense would recognize that given a scenario where the sky is green and I'm complaining that the sky is green, if the sky stopped being green then obviously I would not be complaining the sky is green.

But you continue on with your delusion of disbelief if you find it significant...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
It doesn't matter, because since SCOTUS cases ALWAYS set precedent, any individual 'narrowing down' that you do doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Yep. That doesn't refute or disprove anything I just said in the least.
It does.
You just want to pretend it doesn't.

The vast majority of cases will be unaffected by this ruling. The basis of the ruling was obvious in that this country has a long history of "fruits of the poisonous tree" treatment. As I pointed out in another thread, it's also the underlying issue behind the objection to the Trump country ban vs Muslim ban.
Regardless, I'm not saying that it's not "precedent".
I am saying that it won't be relevant to the vast majority of cases involving business discrimination against homosexuals.

If you want to talk about the meaningful precedent set by that case, SCOTUS examined the argument that "freedom of religion" protected the business discrimination against gays. AND SCOTUS REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT.
If you want to talk about the meaningful precedent set by that case, SCOTUS examined the argument that "we only refuse to sell them the cake for a gay wedding" protected the business discrimination against gays. AND SCOTUS REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT.
THOSE are the precedents you should be paying attention to.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2018, 06:12 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,788
Thanks: 249
Thanked 5,667 Times in 4,110 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
What I find truly amusing about this comment is that if you look at the right and say "Shariah law", you'll see people who "feel threatened".
I think maybe in the left's wildest imagination, some entity on the right might be summoned, who to them solely, appears threatened by the Islamic monkey law Sharia. Myself, I am willing to bet 25 trillion to one that the feeling is nausea toward Mohammed's made up crap.

Now, back to the marijuana ballot.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-22-2018, 11:57 AM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,167
Thanks: 807
Thanked 1,550 Times in 1,055 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You jump to extremist ideology when U.S. Muslim Americans are typically nowhere near that.
I note for the viewing audience how Foundit just moved the goalposts as he often does. He brought up SHARIA LAW, to which I pointed out the glaring contrast of that versus what I was talking about, then he replies by switching to Muslims in America who DON'T have sharia law. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The vast majority of cases will be unaffected by this ruling. The basis of the ruling was obvious ...
Aaaaaand, yet another moving of goalposts: no one was talking about the 'vast majority of cases'. Precedent doesn't require "vast majority" for it to be legal precedent. None of this disproves the fact that there IS now precedent with this case, no matter how much you now want to backtrack and pretend it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I'm not saying that it's not "precedent".
I am saying that it won't be relevant to the vast majority of cases involving business discrimination against homosexuals.
well I'm glad you've changed from your initial claim. Of coruse, again, even if this is now your CURRENT position, no one has argued that it would be relevant to any "vast majority" of cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
If you want to talk about the meaningful precedent set by that case, SCOTUS examined the argument that "freedom of religion" protected the business discrimination against gays.
That's ONE issue of meaningful precedent, but certainly not "THE" meaningful one, as if there is only one. Another (which is the one i brought up) is the one that actually pertains to the RULING: that of cases brought with bias against religion. Hopefully litigants will think twice about doing that now that they know SCOTUS ruled against them based on that prejudice.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Joe Shoe For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2018, 11:44 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,485
Thanks: 10,065
Thanked 15,213 Times in 9,221 Posts
Default Re: Utah’s medical marijuana ballot measure would violate Mormons’ religious beliefs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I note for the viewing audience how Foundit just moved the goalposts as he often does. He brought up SHARIA LAW, to which I pointed out the glaring contrast of that versus what I was talking about, then he replies by switching to Muslims in America who DON'T have sharia law.

I was talking about right-wing complaints of Sharia law, and in this country is where they talk about that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Aaaaaand, yet another moving of goalposts: no one was talking about the 'vast majority of cases'. Precedent doesn't require "vast majority" for it to be legal precedent. None of this disproves the fact that there IS now precedent with this case, no matter how much you now want to backtrack and pretend it's not.
Aaaaaand Joe Shoe quotes apple to whine about orange not being refuted, instead of addressing the direct comments against orange.
I was using that comment to show how complaints about "precedent" are not statistically meaningful.

This ruling set no new precedent.
There has always been precedent that establishes that prosecutorial demonstrations of prejudice can get a case thrown out.
Look at the O.J. trial. Why do you think they were trying to claim the police were racist?
Because if they could have proved racism, it would have gotten the case eliminated...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
well I'm glad you've changed from your initial claim.
Another bad lie on your part. I never changed any position.
I never said it wasn't precedent regarding what the ruling actually said. I was clarifying what it did and did not say because you've already screwed this up in one prior thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
That's ONE issue of meaningful precedent, but certainly not "THE" meaningful one, as if there is only one. Another (which is the one i brought up) is the one that actually pertains to the RULING: that of cases brought with bias against religion. Hopefully litigants will think twice about doing that now that they know SCOTUS ruled against them based on that prejudice.
Again, this establishes nothing meaningful.
Any case before that one which could show that the police or prosecutors were prejudiced against the person because of the group he belonged to could get the case thrown out.

This is one of the reasons judges recuse themselves in cases that don't involve any threat of prejudice but rather the judge could be unreasonably biased towards one legal conclusion.

You keep trying to treat this ruling like it's anything new and it's not...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ballot, beliefs, marijuana, measure, medical, mormons’, opp, religious, utah’s, violate, would

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0