Posted on 01/21/2015 6:30:04 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
A unanimous Supreme Court ruling has invalidated an Arkansas state prison rule that barred inmates from growing beards measuring more than a quarter of an inch long. The rule had been challenged by inmate Gregory Holt, a Muslim man who had asked for permission to grow a half-inch-long beard as a compromise from the full beard he believes is required by his faith. In a ruling announced Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the policy violated Holt's religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
A 5-4 decision that BARELY favoured a Christian family with a business that employs hundreds of people (Hobby Lobby) over whether they have to pay for the murder of unborn children via a FEDERAL government dictate.
Anyone else see a problem with this?
Wait until the Church of Body Modification starts filing court paperwork for their beliefs.
Well, everyone knows what the goat god Herman requires of his celebrants. How about that SC. And do not forget the religious requirement to kill all infidels. It isw a matter of personal belief.
And it's not going to stop there!
A quarter-inch beard is an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion for a man who believes he is required to have a full beard, but a half-inch beard is not? This makes no sense at all. Either both restrictions are unconstitutional or neither one is.
Note: I am thoroughly unimpressed with a religion that allows a man to threaten a real president’s daughters (G. W. Bush) and stab his (presumably former) girlfriend but does not allow him to shave his own face.
His religious faith also requires that he kill unbelievers. Perhaps he could be pointed in their direction. Maybe then they would get a better understanding of why there ruling is stupid.
The First Amendment states that the People are permitted the freedom to exercise a religion of their choosing and bars Congress from ESTABLISHING a religion. This was in response to the English monarchy’s relationship with the Church of England and its use as a religious bully pulpit.
There’s nothing in the BoR that prohibits a religiously-based business from barring non-Christians from their employ. Likewise, there’s nothing prohibiting a jailor from disallowing a bad grooming practice.
Our entire government system is infected.
Will the courts also say religious freedom when a baker or a church refuses to accept a homosexual wedding or does muslims get freedom of religion and we don’t when it comes to homosexuals and the homostapo?
The actual deliberative process involved tests that would not have passed your example.
Only in the legal system is procedure more important than results. In truth, Islam was never comprehended in the Constitution. The admonition against religious tests was for the purpose of creating and maintaining a cobbled together country in which various states had differing denominations of Christianity, and where picking any one in particular would have blown apart the coalition.
The Constitution is specifically and deliberately biased towards Christianity.
A prisoner has LOST HIS RIGHTS due to his own behavior.
Employees of a private company do NOT have a right to work there, & can leave if the employer’s rules are an issue for them.
Our Supremes have really gone insane!
The court has its collective head up its collective robed a$$.
Bunch of liberal loonies, including the Roberts guy who was beaten into submission by the executive branch.
The ruling was not based on the First Amendment. It was based on a federal statute which prohibits prisons receiving federal aid from infringing on inmate's religious freedom unless absolutely necessary to protect the security of the prison. Hence the 9-0 decision, written by Alito.
The right for a Muslim to grow a beard is so much vital than the right of an unborn child to see the light of day.
Notice that I did not capitalize supreme, just like the Constitution does not capitalize supreme.
I meant to write “much more” and also any religious belief regarding abortion is not legitimate.
How about the hairs get tweezed out one at a time?
Christian business owners are forced to provide marriage services to homosexuals. Why doesn’t the Court protect THEIR religious freedom?
There is a line between arbitrary and reasonable. I sincerely wish this “dress code” didn’t involve some idiot’s idea of religion, but in reading Sam Alito’s opinion, it becomes pretty clear that he did see this as an arbitrary dress code rule.
I recall a similar issue in around 1969 in Wyoming where the sheriff of Carbon County insisted on shaving the heads of “hippies” in his jail. No Muzzie’s involved. It had a similar outcome.
Much ado about nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
