Kentucky Legalizes weed (for Rastafarians)

[East Coast Hustle]

That "Sincerely Held" clause is going to make abusing this law a little harder. I've never really liked the idea of the government being able to decide what is a "Legitimate" religion and what is not.


So, yeah. The Butt Nekkid Church of Gay Sex on Police Cars will probably be openly discriminated against on the grounds of not being sincere enough.

Still, there have to be ways to abuse this law that will make these assholes sorry they ever came up with it.

Public nudity is a sincere religious belief for Wiccans...

I'd gladly sell everyone's rights down the river if it meant never having to see a naked wiccan.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

That "Sincerely Held" clause is going to make abusing this law a little harder. I've never really liked the idea of the government being able to decide what is a "Legitimate" religion and what is not.


So, yeah. The Butt Nekkid Church of Gay Sex on Police Cars will probably be openly discriminated against on the grounds of not being sincere enough.

Still, there have to be ways to abuse this law that will make these assholes sorry they ever came up with it.

Public nudity is a sincere religious belief for Wiccans...

I'd gladly sell everyone's rights down the river if it meant never having to see a naked wiccan.

TOO LATE. MWAD. 

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Ummm...I'm not sure what it is this law is intended to do () but whatever it's shooting for, I'm pretty sure it missed.

Scenario A: This law does not exist and some town in Kentucky passes a law saying you can't discriminate against gays. Some whiny homophobe says that's horseshit and my religious freedom is being infringed upon and makes some court listen to him recite the Apostle's creed, before finding that-
1. The anti-discrimation law does burden this persons religious beliefs, and therefore it's constitutionality must be weighed using strict scrutiny.
2. The law passes strict scrutiny because it's based on a compelling governmental interest, it uses the least restrictive means to advance that interest, and it's narrowly tailored to that purpose.

Scenario B: This law does exist...And pretty much exactly everything above, except you change the word "constitutionality" to "legality", and change "strict scrutiny" to "strict scrutiny minus the narrowly tailored requirement."

It'd actually be harder to get away with refusing to rent to homos under the Kentucky law, than it would be to do so under the first amendment.

Kind of a cute effect, that...making it more tempting to sue on the one hand, and making it harder to win on the other.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/

Damron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."

Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.

In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.

According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/

Damron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."

Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.

In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.

According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.

This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.

As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/

Damron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."

Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.

In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.

According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.

This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.

As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.

Dear Amish Lord...We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much. Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/

Damron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."

Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.

In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.

According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.

This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.

As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.

Dear Amish Lord...We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much. Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen.

  Post of the year.   

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

And here's a report from the "benefit of the doubt" department--

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentuckys-religious-freedom-bill-isnt-about-obamacare-or-lgbt-rights-says-legislator-92922/

Damron said he introduced the legislation in response to the state's actions requiring members of the Amish community to display "bright orange metal signs on the back of their buggies, which the Amish are opposed to, because the signs are not plain."

Although the state of Kentucky believed the bright orange triangle signs would protect the Amish from passing vehicles, the Amish believed the signs would draw too much attention to them, and would conflict with their religiously held standards and beliefs in humility and modesty.

In 2012, some members of the Amish community in Kentucky served time in jail for violating the state's law.

According to Damron, in the state's actions toward the Amish community presented an example of a "reduction in their religious freedom." He added that the federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires states to "show a compelling interest" when opposing a person's actions based on religious freedom. And, in the case against the Amish in Kentucky, the state only showed a "reasonable interest" when it violated their religious freedom.

This is technically unrelated, but you know what else isn't exactly "plain?" Driving a horse and buggy right through the middle of the fucking 21st century like some kind of ass-backwards Dr. Who.

As for the motivation behind the law, of course they'd say something like that.

Dear Amish Lord...We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much. Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen.

  Post of the year.   

--belongs to Seth McFarland, just couldn't find a video.

[Bruno]

I thought it sounded familiar.