On 8/3/05 11:40 PM, "Ron Brace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the problem in either plaintiffs case is that their property is
> in a public domain, not private. Public corporations do not have any
> 'rights' guaranteed by constitutional law, only privileges and rights
> granted to them by legislative decree and case law.
I'm not sure what you mean by "public domain" versus "private." Surely you
don't mean "owned by the public" as opposed to "owned by individuals or
non-governmental groups of individuals."
And what difference does it make, legally, whether the rights are granted by
statute or by constitution? They still cannot be taken without due process.
(I'm not saying that rights are necessarily being deprived here, but just as
a general note, the source of a right doesn't matter in a due-process
deprivation analysis.)
>
> I think the MN case will be a no contest. If the churches object to the
> placement of signs as decreed by law, then why not object to
> 'Illuminated in Red letter' exit signs, or placement of fire
> extinguishers, or the mandatory minimal width of their doors, or
> required lighting standards, or handicap parking signs and ramps, or any
> of a dozen other regulations that they are require to obey in order to
> remain a public entity? Such laws have been uniformly upheld for decades
> or longer and this one should prove no different.
Can you point to an actual case in which any of your alternative examples
were objected to on the basis that compliance was a violation of a religious
belief? If not, then they are not comparable in the only way that would be
meaningful here. Religious groups *are* permitted to, e.g., discriminate in
employment in at least some limited ways, related to their religious beliefs
or missions, that are not available to non-religious private employers.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is
worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a
miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
