This is what happens when a judge looks at the letter of the law and not the intent and why we need to avoid those...
This is what happens when a judge looks at the letter of the law and not the intent and why we need to avoid those who strictly interpret what is written and who disregard what the law was trying address. Which is exactly how racists, bigots and other dregs of society have used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify their bigotry. That particular piece of legislation was originally passed to ensure minority religions couldn't be denied their religious preferences (Native Americans smoking peyote, for example) by state or federal governments, not to allow assholes to deny baking a cake or giving the morning after pill.
#education
Originally shared by Chris Kim A
Judge says there's no fundamental right to learn to read and write
Few could dispute the importance of literacy. But children have no fundamental right to learn to read and write, according to a federal judge whose ruling in a closely watched lawsuit Friday left some disheartened and others raising questions.
#education
Originally shared by Chris Kim A
Judge says there's no fundamental right to learn to read and write
Few could dispute the importance of literacy. But children have no fundamental right to learn to read and write, according to a federal judge whose ruling in a closely watched lawsuit Friday left some disheartened and others raising questions.
Comments
But, had strict interpretors of the Constitution been around back when freedom of speech cases were being argued, then yes, it would probably only mean the spoken word, not the written word or freedom of expression as we understand it today. Protections for the press are already in the First Amendment so I don't know where you're going with that.