How Did The First Amendment Get Twisted…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment has never been interpreted that laws which do not ban specific religions or religious practices but are for everyone such as the drugs laws are unconstitutional. For an example you can ban the use of peyote and it will also prohibit people taking peyote for religious ceremonies, the Supreme Court in a ruling in 1990 said that it can be banned. According to the ‘Electric Law Library,

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit the State of Oregon from banning the sacramental use of peyote through its general criminal prohibition laws, or from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs for such religiously inspired use. In an opinion written by Justice Scalia (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Stevens, and Kennedy), the Court discarded the long-standing compelling interest test, holding that facially neutral laws of general applicability that burden the free exercise of religion require no special justification to satisfy free exercise scrutiny. Finally, the Court asserted that the free exercise of religion may be protected through the political process. According to the majority, its inability to find constitutional protection for religiously inspired action burdened by generally applicable laws does not mean statutory exemptions to such laws are not permitted or even desired…

But that is not the only court case that said the First Amendment rights were limited, there was also a Supreme Court case where a certain Amish sect claimed that they didn’t have to pay the Social Security tax because it violated their religious beliefs. In the Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties said this about United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982),

When a person’s religious beliefs are at odds with actions of their government, and the person is required to support the government through taxes, there may be conflict. In deciding these conflicts, courts must weigh the government’s interest in the tax program against the burden on the individual’s rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

… in this case the Court did not require an accommodation on the part of the government. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that there was no constitutional requirement for an exemption from social security taxes based on the free exercise clause. It also ruled that the existing statutory exemption only applied to the self-employed, not employers like Mr. Lee.

The same thing was true when the Quakers claimed a religious exemption from paying income tax because of their religious belief of pacifism. They lost their court case and had to pay their taxes.

Now the Republicans and conservatives are trying to twist the First Amendment to allow religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to allow people to discriminate sexual orientation and gender identity.

Washington Lawmaker Introduces Religious, Gay Discrimination Bill
The Huffington Post
By John Celock
Posted: 04/26/2013

Legislation proposed in Washington state this week would allow businesses to deny service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population and others, based on religious differences.

Under the terms of the bill, businesses in the state could refuse service to anyone whose religious or philosophical beliefs differ from their own. They could not, however, refuse service based on areas protected under federal law, which does not include the LGBT community.

This bill gives carte blanche powers to people to discriminate against LGBT people, all they will have to say that it is against my religion and they can discriminate. There are no religious tests to prove that it is really against their religion to discriminate because by definition they just have to state that and it automatically is true.

Do you remember a few months ago the Republicans got up on their soapbox and said that they had to be more inclusive… well it didn’t take long for their actions to show their true colors.