What happens when Religious Freedom causes harm to other individuals?
Sadly it seems like “religious freedom” wins out over the health of children.
The Washington Post
By Hannah Natanson
June 8, 2021A Virginia judge said Tuesday that a Loudoun County teacher suspended for refusing to address transgender students with their preferred names and pronouns should return to work immediately.
In a seven-page ruling, 20th Circuit Judge James E. Plowman Jr. sharply rebuked the Loudoun County Public Schools system for its treatment of the teacher, Tanner Cross. Plowman called Loudoun’s attempts to discipline Cross “an unconstitutional action … which has silenced others from speaking publicly on the issue.”
And guess who has their finger in the pudding, our nemesis.
In a statement, Michael Farris, president and chief executive of the Alliance Defending Freedom — the conservative legal group representing Cross — hailed the decision as a victory for free speech. The alliance has a history of taking on lawsuits that call into question the rights of transgender people.
And of course the Republicans are jumping up and down and the Republican candidate said…
The teacher has drawn support from some Loudoun County parents, a small group of whom held a rally for Cross over the weekend. And he has earned attention from Republican Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, who recently tweeted urging the school board to reverse their decision and allow Cross to head back to work.
“As governor,” Youngkin promised, “I will stand up for teachers like Tanner Cross.”
Does “Religious Freedom” top Human Rights?
Does “Religious Freedom” allow a person to harm another that might cause the death of another?
Whose “Religious Freedom” wins out, does one person’s trump another person’s “Religious Freedom”
It appears that the judge doesn’t care about the harm it causes other people that he only took into account the First Amendment as being limitless but the courts have placed limits on the First Amendment in “Free Speech” and “Religious Freedom.” The Supreme Court…
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
The conservative organization The Heritage Foundation said on their website that there are limits to “Religious Freedom”
Well, that answer is no. The Supreme Court has said the federal government may limit religious freedom – but only when it has a “compelling interest” to do so in order to protect the common good and limit people’s ability to harm others.
Clearly the judge only looked at Mr. Cross complaint and not the injury that Mr. Cross could cause on trans students.
If this case moves on it could it could be a huge win or a complete disaster.
For evangelicals "Religious Freedom" means license to discriminate
ReplyDelete