tonie Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 An attorney from Draper Utah, has proposed a (laughable) bill HB322. This bill will allow discrimination based on sexual orietation as the only prohibited practices are discrimination based on: A) race;199 (B) color;200 © religion;201 (D) sex;202 (E) pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related conditions;203 (F) age;204 (G) national origin; or205 (H) disability. This bill also has a religious freedom section. This religious freedom section prohibits the government from: 63G-19-104. Prohibitions on actions -- Compelling interest and individual 555 protections.556 (1) Except in the most limited circumstances, no law, regulation, ... may substantially558 burden a person's religious liberty unless the ... political subdivision, ...559 imposing the burden demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that:560 (a) the application of the burden to the person is:561 (i) in furtherance of a compelling state interest required to protect public health and562 safety; and563 (ii) strictly necessary to fulfill a constitutionally recognized and paramount interest of564 public health and safety; and565 (b) there are no less restrictive means available to properly achieve and satisfy the566 narrow public interest.567 (2) The exercise of religious liberty and recognized protections under this chapter shall568 not be substantially burdened contrary to this chapter. So the State must show by "clear and convincing evidence" that a anti-polygamy law or religious restriction on marijuana: (i) in furtherance of a compelling state interest required to protect public health and safety; and(ii) strictly necessary to fulfill a constitutionally recognized and paramount interest of public health and safety; and(b) there are no less restrictive means available to properly achieve and satisfy the narrow public interest. I am not sure there are "public health and safety" reason for prohibiting plural marriage or religious marijuana use, especially, given that a blanket law against each most certainly isn't the least restrictive means to protect others. Age of consent laws for plural marriage would be the least restrictive means for protecting minors from plural marriage. Driving under the influence laws would be the least restrictive means for protecting the public from religious people who smoke marijuana. Prohibition against importing drugs would also be the least restrictive means from non-religious marijuana use. So lets all support HB322 and be allow the religious to live as God intended, under the law of plural marriage. Link to comment
BCSpace Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I see nothing wrong with consenting adults considering themselves married and living as such in terms of such being allowed in law. Same goes for SSM. Just don't force the state to recognize such relationships. Link to comment
Stone holm Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Lol...very interesting argument. The deeply held religious belief argument would blow up in their face over polygamy, except doesn't your State Constitution for bid any legislative attempt to legalize it. As to marijuana, although I expect its use in Utah is as common as everywhere else in the U.S., your political elite would probably avoid leaving the Reefer Madness zone of thinking long enough to consider the implications. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 As to marijuana, although I expect its use in Utah is as common as everywhere else in the U.S And you would be wrong: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/05/where-americans-smoke-marijuana-the-most/ We appear to be second to the lowest or lowest depending on age. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Finally me and my two husbands and four wives have found a place where we can live together and raise cannabis. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.