Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
So religious freedom is something you can impose on others?
 That was funny. No, imposing freedom is an oxymoron.
If you mean that practicing one's unalienable right when it interferes with someone else's unalienable right is not protected by the constitution, you're onto something. It becomes even less constitutional, if that's possible, when a government fabricated right interferes with an unalienable constitutional right.
Seems to be an issue more about commerce than free speech.
-spence |
Of course you would see it that way since you ascribe to the progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution. Under that interpretation just about everything is about commerce. The original Constitution only granted the Federal Government specific power to "regulate" INTERSTATE commerce, and "commerce" and "regulate" had far more specific and limited meaning than progressives define those words to mean. And, of course, since the progressives have even removed the INTERSTATE restriction on the Federal authority, ALL commerce, of the broadest definition that can be imposed on that word can be controlled by the Federal Government under any terms it wishes since "regulate" has also been redefined in the broadest possible way. So, yeah, "commerce" is one of the usual fallbacks for progressive jurisprudence.
But, I think (haven't read it), the bill was not about commerce or even speech, but about the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of religion.