Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: chaos_5

I guess it depends on if it’s *YOUR* well that the Amish are shitting in...


4 posted on 06/12/2008 7:27:04 PM PDT by chadwimc (Proud to be an infidel ! Allah fubar !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: chadwimc
Get real! You will find no champions here. This is a CONSERVTIVE website!
6 posted on 06/12/2008 7:31:36 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: chadwimc

Most likely there own, if anyones...the Amish run their own schools and have done so healthfully for generations.

As I understand it, the state rules require a sewer for all schools, regardless. Its JBT time again...


7 posted on 06/12/2008 7:31:56 PM PDT by Starwolf (I rode to work today, did you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: chadwimc

I don’t see how an outhouse is any less sanitary than a septic tank.


9 posted on 06/12/2008 7:33:40 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: chadwimc

I believe an outhouse was required to be 50 feet from a well when they were in the thousands. Compared to the stuff going down toilets in cities, the
amish are probably better greens that toilets.


10 posted on 06/12/2008 7:34:45 PM PDT by healy61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: chadwimc; All
There's no evidence in the story that anyone is being endangered by this practice: the Amish themselves own the land.

In the absence of any immediate danger, it seems to me a pretty clear violation of The Free Exercise of Religion Act:

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

IMHO, this fails both tests, since (1) there is no proven danger, and (2) it's not all clear if less restrictive measures were ever cosidered.

I would guess just about any Federal Court would issue a stay and remand to the local court to determine (1).

14 posted on 06/12/2008 7:36:26 PM PDT by pierrem15 (Charles Martel: past and future of France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: chadwimc
I guess it depends on if it’s *YOUR* well that the Amish are shitting in...

I'll bet you won't be able to support that assertion.

15 posted on 06/12/2008 7:38:22 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (OVERPRODUCTION......... one of the top five worries for American farmers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: chadwimc

Looks like you’ve been whacked enough. Keep in mind dairy farms and such.


31 posted on 06/12/2008 8:42:44 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson