Re the recent Creative v. Elenis decision: a Supreme ruling,
in a parallel Earth:

"We find this case has broader ramifications. We recognize
a right to privacy which imbues the Constitution, an ethic
which animates our history, culture, and values.
Intrinsic to that, is the right to free association, that relations
between individuals be through mutual consent. This right
cannot be infringed, nor private relations, arrangements, or
contracts be mandated by the state.
Therefore, invoking the Ninth Amendment, we declare
invalid all such statutes, regulations, and rules which infringe
upon this right, except in such cases where said arrangements
might reasonably endanger the public safety."

It would be the most earthshaking decision since Brown v. Board -
and a terribly sad comment, that such a ruling is necessary -

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to RichD <[email protected]>:

Therefore, invoking the Ninth Amendment, we declare
invalid all such statutes, regulations, and rules which infringe
upon this right, except in such cases where said arrangements
might reasonably endanger the public safety."

That's a lot squishier than you might think.

One of the reasons that there are laws against polygamy is that it's
often impossible to tell whether it's really voluntary. A husband will
tell his middle aged wife that he's going to marry someone younger and prettier, and there's nothing she can do about it. If you've ever
looked at polygamous Mormon communities, they invariably end up with a
few guys, or often one guy, married to all the young women, and a
bunch of frustrated young men with little to do and nothing to lose.

There's similar reasons why people can't sell their organs, I might
die but I really need the thousand bucks.

I'm certainly not arguing that existing laws about marriage and other
domestic relations are perfect, but there are sensible reasons they
exist.

--
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John Levine" wrote in message news:u81o02$2tvs$[email protected]...

According to RichD <[email protected]>:

Therefore, invoking the Ninth Amendment, we declare
invalid all such statutes, regulations, and rules which infringe
upon this right, except in such cases where said arrangements
might reasonably endanger the public safety."

That's a lot squishier than you might think.

One of the reasons that there are laws against polygamy is that it's
often impossible to tell whether it's really voluntary. A husband will
tell his middle aged wife that he's going to marry someone younger and >prettier, and there's nothing she can do about it. If you've ever
looked at polygamous Mormon communities, they invariably end up with a
few guys, or often one guy, married to all the young women, and a
bunch of frustrated young men with little to do and nothing to lose.

And yet, if a man simply lives with multiple women or has sexual relations
with multiple women or lives his life in such a way that he has multiple
women who function as his pretend wives, and he has not legally married any
of them, that would apparently seem to be perfectly legal, especially if the women are fully aware of and accept the situation. (I'm assuming, of
course, that there is no insurance fraud or tax fraud or anything where the
man is attempting to gain some kind of legal or financial advantage by pretending to be married to any of the women). So why make polygamy a crime when simply living polygamously without the formality of marriage is
apparently legal?

There's similar reasons why people can't sell their organs, I might
die but I really need the thousand bucks.

But you can also give away some organs without dying. I can give a kidney
to my daughter and we both live and it's completely legal and people applaud and say I'm a great father. But if I decide to make a reasoned decision to sell my organ because I need the money and I'm willing to take the chance
that I can live out my remaining years with one kidney, that is somehow illegal? Doesn't really make much sense.

I'm certainly not arguing that existing laws about marriage and other( >domestic relations are perfect, but there are sensible reasons they
exist.

"Sensible" is in the eyes of the beholder. If an individual makes a
reasoned decision to do something that makes sense to him or her and it
doesn't infringe on the life or property of someone else (like selling a
kidney or having polyamorous relationships), some people would say the "sensible" thing is to just look the other way.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/2023 7:50 PM, Rick wrote:

But you can also give away some organs without dying.  I can give a
kidney to my daughter and we both live and it's completely legal and
people applaud and say I'm a great father.  But if I decide to make a reasoned decision to sell my organ because I need the money and I'm
willing to take the chance that I can live out my remaining years with
one kidney, that is somehow illegal?  Doesn't really make much sense.

The logic behind these laws is that if you can sell a kidney or
whatever, people will do it to support a drug habit. And most illegal
drugs(*) are injected, which creates a danger of HIV and other
hard-to-treat diseases.

I'm not saying I agree with this. The current regimen seems to result in
people selling a kidney, having it removed in an unofficial clinic where
the environment and technique are not up to sanitary standards. I think
it would make more sense just to let people legally sell kidneys, and
have the surgery done in a certified hospital or outpatient surgery clinic.

This should result in better outcomes for both the source and the recipient.

(*) not counting "psychedelics" which are usually smoked or swallowed

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 3 Jul 2023 22:02:11 -0700 (PDT), RichD <[email protected]> wrote:

Re the recent Creative v. Elenis decision: a Supreme ruling,
in a parallel Earth:

"We find this case has broader ramifications. We recognize
a right to privacy which imbues the Constitution, an ethic
which animates our history, culture, and values.
Intrinsic to that, is the right to free association, that relations
between individuals be through mutual consent. This right
cannot be infringed, nor private relations, arrangements, or
contracts be mandated by the state.
Therefore, invoking the Ninth Amendment, we declare
invalid all such statutes, regulations, and rules which infringe
upon this right, except in such cases where said arrangements
might reasonably endanger the public safety."

It would be the most earthshaking decision since Brown v. Board -
and a terribly sad comment, that such a ruling is necessary -

I'm happy to discuss this one.

Since the issue at hand was homsexuality, which he opposed based on his religion, I wish the plaintiff had included religious belief in his
argument, and that the court had included it in their decision.

Or maybe one or both did but everything I hear on the radio just ignores religion. Is that it, that the news can't bring itself to say that
religions to which maybe a majority of Americans are to some extent
affiliated prohibit homosexual acts?

Dependig on what the plaintiff argued, it's not just he was being asked
to do something that violates his conscience, but something that
promoted the violation of his religious precepts too. And not some 20th century religion but a long-established one.

For one thing, 99% of the speculative problems with the decision that
its opponents have predicted would not be possible, and there would be
far less reason for current opponents to be opposed.

For another, maybe the 3 who dissented would not have.

Even though there are fleeting refernces to religion in the wikip
article on this, Gorsuch wrote in the decision "a businessperson cannot
be compelled to create a work of art which goes against their values and
which they would not produce for any client. "

What about someone who doesn't approve of race mixing, or interracial
marriage, or anything nice about Jews? Those are values too.

"In a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, Justice Sotomayor
wrote that the decision "grants a business open to the public a
constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class",
and that, under the majority's reasoning, stationers and photographers
could be allowed to turn down clients on the basis of their sexual
orientation or gender identity.[15]"

If the majority had included in the decision the contrary-to-plaintff's- religion-nature of the webpage wanted, then the paragraph just above
would have to have beeen limitied to "clients wanting to promote a
contrary view by means of the stationary or photography", which is a lot
less broad than what Sotomayor said.


BTW, aiui in the cake case, the baker was willing to bake the gay couple
a wedding cake, and he was willing to give them a funnel full of
frosting so they could write on it whatever they wanted, but he was not
willing to himself write, "Jim and Joe" etc. It seems a nasty way to
start of one's marriage by making life miserable for that baker when
there were other bakeries in town that would have done whatever they
wanted.


If freedome of speech means freedom not to say something that one does
not believe, does not freedom of religion include the right not to
promote something, by word or deed, that violates one's religion? And
doesn't the ACLU etc. also support freedom of religion?


BTW, did you all notice that the alleged stimulus for the lawsuit, a
potential gay client who wanted a website done, did not really exist?
Does that make it no longer a case in controversy, and does that
invalidate the whole decision? Do they have to find a valid plaintiff or plaitiff's reason and start all over again?

The person by that name lives in California, is iiuc straight, married
with children, not planning another marriage, and most importantly, he's
a web designer himself and he never heard about this case until after it
was famous.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that micky <[email protected]> said:

If freedome of speech means freedom not to say something that one does
not believe, does not freedom of religion include the right not to
promote something, by word or deed, that violates one's religion? And >doesn't the ACLU etc. also support freedom of religion?

The normal sane interpretation of freedom of religion is that you can
have wnatever beliefs and practices you want until they start to
impinge on other people. The sincerely held beliefs of my religion
find it an abomination to pay taxes or to do business with Black
people. The court has in recent years weaponized the First Amendment
to produce the results it wants, starting with Citizens United, and
now the fake web site case since they are very very concerned lest any conservative Christian be even slightly inconvenienced.

Groff vs. DeJoy, also decided last week, had a normal result because
they managed to keep the 1st out of it. Groff works for the USPS, and
is a member of a church that forbids working on Sunday. The USPS
started doing Sunday deliveries, he refused the shifts which means
either other employees in his small PO have to work every Sunday or
they have to hire another person just to cover him. The law uses
phrases like "reasonable accomodation" and "substantial burden" and
SCOTUS sensibly kicked it back to the lower court to decide whether it
was indeed a substantial burden to accomodate him.

By the way, there is an unforunate tendency to assume that the
positions of religious organizations have a long or deep history,
which they often don't. In the 19th century one could find lots of
advice about bringing on delayed menses, and it wasn't an abortion
until quickening, around 20 weeks. Churches had as far as I can tell
nothing to say about pre-quickening measures.

Until Roe v. Wade, conservatve Protestants paid little attention to
abortion since that was a Catholic issue and they didn't think much of Catholics. After Roe they made a U-turn and got where we are now.

Christian theology has always condemned male homosexuality but the
leap from "we shouldn't do it" to "nobody else should either" is often
more recent. A lot of the rules were really about male prostitution,
not relationships in general.

BTW, did you all notice that the alleged stimulus for the lawsuit, a >potential gay client who wanted a website done, did not really exist?
Does that make it no longer a case in controversy, and does that
invalidate the whole decision? Do they have to find a valid plaintiff or >plaitiff's reason and start all over again?

If the Supreme Court contained actual judges rather than politicians
in bathrobes, they would have tossed the case out. Unfortunately there
is no appeal short of a constitutional amendment, or changing who's on
the court.
--
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)