Not just believers.
rduncan at UNLINFO.UNL.EDU
Tue Oct 14 12:57:25 PDT 1997
> In message Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:32 -0500,
> richard duncan <rduncan at UNLINFO.UNL.EDU> writes (in part):
> > But what compelling interest exists for requiring an Orthodox Jewish
> > printer to print Nazi hate speech or pornographic books?
> None, of course. But is the objection to having to do these things really
> "religious"? Wouldn't any decent person, of any faith, or none, have just as
> strong an objection?
The compelling interest test may not be so easy as Alan suggests
('none, of course"). Take the case of the Nazi speech. A state might
argue we have a compelling interest in ensuring that unpopular points
of view are not suppressed by discriminatory exclusion from commercial
printing services. The evidence might show that but for the law
certain very unpopular viewpoints would not be published. Of course,
today the Nazi group can easily use computers to do their own printing
in house, so perhaps this interest is not convincingly compelling.
Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)
"So if I stand let me stand on the promise that You will pull me
through, And if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me
to You, If I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these
songs, But if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his Home."
--Rich Mullins (October 21, 1955-September 19, 1997)
More information about the Religionlaw