Religious freedom?
I could care less about the concealed carry law at this point, but the lawsuit brought about by several churches against it seems to be arguing on pretty tenuous grounds. To say that their religious freedom is being infringed upon by having to put up specifically-worded signs seems like a rather large stretch to me. What about handicapped-parking signs? Traffic control devices? Fire exit signs? All of those are mandated by government in one form or another, and these don't seem to be interfering with religion.
Look, I'm sympathetic to the concerns of the churches (and of other people) about the inability to ban guns in parking lots, or the whole landlord/tenant issue. However, I don't know if "religious freedom" is the way to go about arguing against these issues.
posted by MN Politics Guru @ 17:33
1 Comments:
The question is can the state force a church to place on sign on the churche's property that references a message that is totally antithetical to such religion? It by its very nature implies that there is some reasonable proballity that without the sign, someone would likely bring a gun onto chuch premises.
What it State made churches put up a sign that said: bigots are allowed (or not allowed) to come onto the premises?
This is kind of an insult. Perhaps this could be remedied by having a statutory presumption against having guns on church premises unless there is a sign that says guns are allowed.
Post a Comment
<< Home