Legal Case Discussion
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In the case of Mr. Bigot Lancer and his neighbors, in my view, the neighbors should prevail. While Mr. Lancer does have his constitutional right to freedom of religion, that right does not extend to any form of religious practices that might adversely affect the public or have the potential for public harm. Besides being a nuisance, Mr. Lancer's choice of religious expression and ornamentation could lead to more serious problems for the neighborhood. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States contains the provision which prohibits congress from making any laws that abridge or restrict freedom of religion. Further, the Supreme Court has held that the protection of all the first amendment fundamental liberties apply to the states, also, under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The freedom of religious expression has created unique problems for the Court over the years. A number of decisions by the Court have established some guidelines. However, O'Brien noted the apparent capriciousness of the Court. One decision may be overturned by the next decision in a similar case. This happened in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503(1986). The justices upheld the air force's prohibition of wearing yarmulke contrary to military dress code by orthodox Jewish officers. The next year, however, Congress passed a law permitting members in the military to wear religious apparel indoors, while on duty, so long as it did not interfere with their mil
. . .
pinion stated that each of the city's ordinances reflected the governmental interest only against conduct motivated by religious belief, and the ordinances had every appearance of a prohibition that society was prepared to impose on the specific worshippers, but not on itself. The opinion continued to affirm that such acts were the exactly what the general applicability requirement was designed to prevent (O'Brien, 1995, p. 782).
Applying the Court's finding in Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (1993) to the case against Mr. Lancer, a number of other legal actions may have been available to his neighbors. Mr. Lancer's neighbors could use other options, such as the existing laws and ordinances of the city in which they live, against Mr. Lancer to protect their health and safety. For example, safety would be a serious concern for the neighborhood in several areas: First, the construction and lighting of the cross; and second, the increased traffic coming into the neighborhood.
Construction and lighting are a concern because of the size of the cross. How was his 40-foot cross erected on his roof? Forty feet is roughly the height of two regular telephone poles placed end to end, or a four-story house.
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
City Hialeah, Supreme Court, Goldman Weinberger, Americans Real, Religious Freedom, Bigot Lancer, Court O'Brien, Reynolds United, Constitution United, religious beliefs, References O'Brien, neon sign, o'brien 1995, increased traffic, real estate, cross neon, lancer's neighbors, lighted cross, cross neon sign, hialeah 113 sct, lancer's choice, 113 sct 2217, religious belief, aye city hialeah, babalu aye city,
Approximate Word count = 2100
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
|