SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77589)10/16/2003 1:02:05 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
"If a person is the only person in the US to hold a certain ethical belief, but it is deeply rooted in them, are they entitled to constitional protection for their belief?

Perhaps their belief is repugnant to our society, but one has to acknowledge that it is deeply held. Is it entitled to protection?"

Another false premise. If it is an ethical belief then it is based on a standard that we recognize as 'ethical'. Ethical connotes correctness. Otherwise the person would have no basis for his claim. How can society consider a belief, both ethical and repugnant. Maybe ethical and too extreme is what you meant.



To: The Philosopher who wrote (77589)10/16/2003 1:19:26 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
As far as I can see from the Supreme Court texts, it does not have to be widely held, just intensely held by the person claiming exemption. However, as I have said over and over, exemption is not guaranteed, and if the belief were repugnant, it would probably be disallowed or restricted in scope........


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News