pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Wait. You said you weren't going to go straight to a lawsuit. But if you don't get Congressional approval after 1 or 2 days, you're gonna sue? Seems reasonable.
(CBRN) Chemical, Biological, Radiological & Nuclear
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
seems harsh for a no reply
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Lol, Ash Carter is on TV right now and used words from my letter to let transgender people in the military, so I'll bring that up in the lawsuit. As well as the 14th amendment, and obergefell V Hodges, and these
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
"If government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forego a religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the government has burdened the individual's free exercise of religion."
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Congressional Response:
"In the Court's ruling it was only decided that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom to wear religious apparel in uniform - it did not outright bar it."
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
"The Government’s mere invocation of the general characteristics of Schedule I substances, as set forth in the Controlled Substances Act, cannot carry the day."
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
"In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc–3(g)"
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
...
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–3
(g) Broad construction
This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.
(4) GovernmentThe term “government”—
(B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2(b) and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
"If government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forego a religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the government has burdened the individual's free exercise of religion."
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Congressional Response:
"In the Court's ruling it was only decided that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom to wear religious apparel in uniform - it did not outright bar it."
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
"The Government’s mere invocation of the general characteristics of Schedule I substances, as set forth in the Controlled Substances Act, cannot carry the day."
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
"In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc–3(g)"
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
...
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–3
(g) Broad construction
This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.
(4) GovernmentThe term “government”—
(B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2(b) and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law.
Last edited:
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I'm not punishing them. I am just giving them an opportunity to support it, then if they won't I am taking the only recourse I have left. If it seems harsh that's their fault, not mine. It's just the only way to do it.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And I literally sent that letter to every member of 6 different State legislatures and the US Senate, and I put:
"I am not asking for special treatment, I am only asking that the laws written by congress and interpreted by the supreme court be followed by recruiters... being restricted from service simply because of my Religion"
And he said:
"Every Transgender person I have talked to said they don't want special treatment, they just want to be treated like everyone else"
Lol. So I'll bring the email I sent to the the multiple Congresses, and a transcript or something with his words. And Obergefell V Hodges basically says that everyone is free to identify as they please, so the case that legalized transgender marriage also has implications for religious identity.
"I am not asking for special treatment, I am only asking that the laws written by congress and interpreted by the supreme court be followed by recruiters... being restricted from service simply because of my Religion"
And he said:
"Every Transgender person I have talked to said they don't want special treatment, they just want to be treated like everyone else"
Lol. So I'll bring the email I sent to the the multiple Congresses, and a transcript or something with his words. And Obergefell V Hodges basically says that everyone is free to identify as they please, so the case that legalized transgender marriage also has implications for religious identity.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And I decided to hold off on the lawsuit for now, I'll wait 12-18 months. I'm going to move somewhere where I can get some stuff done, if a congressperson doesn't say I can join in the next 4 months, then I'll file the lawsuit 1 year after that. And I'll let you guys know where I am moving in around 4 months if it seems like they aren't going to support my recruitment. Everyone is going to think where I am moving is random, but you'll see why I'm going when I get there and start posting stuff.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And they already have Hindus in the Military, and probably even people from India, so they probably lied about their Marijuana use. But they are going to have to accept it, they already accept Hindus, they just don't realize that Hindus use Marijuana as part of their Religion.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I applied online at first and they had the option of Hindu in the Religion options, they just don't know that they are allowing Bhang users into the Military when they accept Hindus. And every Hindu in India uses Marijuana on Holi, so its not like there are only a few Hindus doing it, it's every Hindu in India, and many in America.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And I can prove it has been my Religion for 10 years, so this will be a pretty easy case. Plus all that case law I posted earlier. I added the one case they could possibly bring up that says Religion is not as free in the Military, but then I put Congresses response, which said it didn't allow for Religious things in Uniform, the case did not bar Religion from the Military.
StonedFarmer
Well-Known Member
Gov lawyers are shit fin. I believe in you
Dont let me down
Dont let me down
srh88
Well-Known Member
im thinking you need a job or something. youre way too sue happy. if you get turned down from something.. fuck it, thats life. get your shit together
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I know. The city's rebuttal was hilarious. And the prosecutor I beat in my Marijuana case said "we only had 2 days to prepare" in a 5 year old case and after I spent 40 days in jail.
And I am just going to be using the exact same stuff that I have seen other people use to beat the DEA and Army, then add even more on top of that.