Kentucky law violates religious freedom

I was on CNN when I came across this article regarding snake handling. Apparently there is a law which states that anyone who handles a snake in connection with a religious event will be fined $50 to $100. This is blatantly unconstitutional. If adults wish to endanger themselves due to their religious beliefs that is their right. I beljeve this law should be recognized as unconstitutional and repealed immediately

 

It won't be able to stand, especially because the law discriminates de jure against a religious group. For it to be constitutional the government would need to show they have a compelling state interest that was achieved through narrowly tailored least restrictive means.

Even if the interest is, "snakes are dangerous" they would have to ban all snake handling and not just for one group of people.

 

Part of the problem is that I dont believe anyone is challenging the law. It would be nice to see a religious defense group, a constitution defense group, or the ACLU get involved, but I doubt anyone will since the law, while blatantly unconstitutional, affects only a few groups and it seems is not often enforced.

 

Or it could be that they want to protect snakes from abuse or discourage the importation of poisonous snakes. They could take the religious services part out and still have the same law.

 

So if there was a religion based on smoking MJ or using LSD or Heroin, that would be constitutionally protected? Why not, Peyote is used by the Navajo in their religious ceremonies.

 

They could have gone that route, but they didn't. Now if they try to do so advocates will have ample evidence that it is still discriminatory against religion.

Actually no, that case already went up to SCOTUS a while ago and they did not allow the us of peyote. You can ban something as long as it is neutral and a ban for everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith.

You can allow a religious defense to drug charges, but not all states allow it.

 

The state of California can write a law that says that all Republicans are idiots and will be assessed a fine of $10,000 for registering as a Republican, and it won't be struck down until it's enforced.

I doubt anyone in Kentucky has actually been assessed a fine for this.

 

Discriminatory against religion isn't the magic bullet. Not allowing child sacrifice is discriminatory against religion. They likely went that route because religious institutions were the only ones doing it.

 

Well murder is a blanket law that is not targeted against any one group. Anytime a law specifies only a certain group must adhere it's a red flag, especially when its discrimination due to race, national origin, alienage, or religion.

 

There are time, place and manner restrictions upheld by the SCOTUS in the first amendment already. Whether or not they would uphold this law, if challenged, is not easily discernible in a vacuum.

 

To which laws are you referring, I know the government can discriminate when they have a reason, but my point is once they target certain suspect classes that cases very rarely get past SCOTUS.

 

Can't yell fire in a theater sounds about the same as can't have snakes in a church to me.

 

Apparently the moon is made of cheese. You'd need to know exactly what the law is question says before unconditionally declaring it unconstitutional.

 

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19053

Edit: on phone so I cant copy the text but as you can clearly see Im not making things up. This law specifically targets religion. Its completely unconstitutional.

 

Not at all. The cant yell fire law (which I disagree with btw) is a law meant to prevwnt injury due to mass panic. This law targets people who voluntarily handle snakes. If people under 18 were handing the snakes or people were unvoluntarily forced to do so I could see an issue, but if someone things snake handling brings them closer to their god why should the governmwnt stop them? It's a blatant assault against religious freedom.

 

When people get bitten by a snake, I am willing to bet they drop said snake at which time there is a pissed off poisonous snake loose in a building full of people.

 

Actually no, the SCOTUS has ruled that religious practice can be regulated, but not religious belief. The case was enforcement of federal anti-polygamy laws against Mormons in the 1880's.
There does have to be a compelling state interest to ban such practices. These would include Polygamy, human sacrifice, snake handling (risk to practitioners)

- - - Updated - - -

It's been tried, and only the Navajo won their case, everyone else has lost. (damnit)

 

You would be wrong..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling

 

Then they can challenge it and get it struck down, assuming the state doesn't drop the chrages.

 

SCOTUS has been wrong before, and I believe they were wrong with polygamy. What consenting adults do, especially with religious practices, should be legal so long as they aren't hurting others.

 

Yeah, and that argument could be applied to damn near anything. People have slipped on soapy floors before, therefore no soap should be allowed in public showers, nor should we have showers. Driving, don't get me started on how other people can cause serious death or injury just using a car! Sorry but I don't see any real justification for this law. It violates religious freedom, flat out. What does surprise me is that the right isn't all over repealing this, but then again they don't actually give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about freedom and rights, religious or otherwise. It's all about how loud they can scream regardless of what it is, and not many people would care about this issue.

 

Do you think the religious left had this law passed in the first place?

 

I honestly have no idea who passed this law. Regardless it shouldn't exist.

 

I haven't studied the court cases and record of appeals. But so far either they haven't appealed or any appeals have seen their convictions upheld. Whether the federal courts would uphold these laws, we cannot say, since it doesn't seem that they have yet been asked to rule on them. There aren't many jaw droppers on the Supreme Court.

 

We can reasonably determine what laws would be struck down based on previous court decisions, especially one like this.