Should Certain People Be Exempted From Obeying Certain Laws?

D

Deleted Account

Guest
or should everyone be required to obey the law of the land?

Here are some examples of people and groups who've believed they shouldn't be made to obey certain laws.

Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church wanted themselves exempt from laws regarding the smoking of cannabis since they considered it an act of worship.

Ronald Sparrow fished with a net longer than the required legal length but believed he should be allowed since he was expressing an existing aboriginal fishing right.

Bakers were judged to have broken equality laws by refusing to bake a gay wedding cake and are in the process of challenging such judgements.

This thread isn't about the individual cases mentioned above, such cases are given as examples of people believing they should be exempted from obeying certain laws.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It should be applied equally of course, otherwise it is a discrimination. But I think there are too many laws in general. Everyday millions of ordinary people break laws and only a few ever get caught, so that is already silly and unequal, because it would be impossible to sent to prison e.g. everyone who is smoking drugs. Laws need to be sensible and reasonable.
 
I think all of those laws are dumb and shouldn't exist in the first place. But, if the law exists, everyone should be required to follow it equally.

As far as religious concerns, if there is a law that prohibits you to follow your religion, you are free to break that law and pay the consequences. It's unfortunate that a law exists that would prohibit someone from doing what their religion asks them to, but I don't think that means they should be exempt. They can try to fight for that law to be changed, like everyone else, or they can break the law and pay the price. That's my opinion at the moment, but I haven't given this too much thought.
 
I think this is a bit of a complicated situation. You see some laws in a sense contradict or supersede other laws. In theory, Laws should apply equally to everyone. However there are clause' that exist to special scenarios. I know here in Canada there are places where hunting is outlawed, except for certain aboriginal tribes who traditionally hunt in that area.

The same goes for religious practices. The law is for religious freedom, and sometimes certain practices can be "illegal" in the general sense. For example in orthodox Christianity and some catholic church's, they give a teaspoon of church wine to children and infants. Mind you the wine is watered down, but this would still be illegal in the general sense. This is still allowed because of religious freedom, and that no harm is actually happening to the minors.

In my opinion, the first scenario should have to abide by the law, while the other two I think should be exempt.
Reason being is if this church is using marijuana for religious purposes in a state where it's illegal, it can cause bigger problems of distribution outside the church and supply. The government wouldn't be able to keep track of what's happening with that weed.
 
CassTeaElle said:
I haven't given this too much thought.
Click to expand...

I've given it plenty of thought since I'm writing an essay on it :emoji_grimacing:

I'm still trying to figure what is the best way to deal with this question.

I think the question goes back another thread I started does someone have a free will. Can they really reject their beliefs and culture and what is the consequences for the person and the wider society if they do?

Under the law, we are supposed to be equals but there are some laws that favour a certain group over another. In the UK we have the disability act that states businesses should make changes or adjustments so that those with disabilities can access their premises. Also the disabled are permitted to park closer to stores and an offence for someone who isn't disabled to park in the spaces that were made for the disabled. One could say the disabled are treated with favour and can do things that others can't. But I think the majority of people wouldn't complain since no one chooses to be disabled.

But is a culture and a religion like a disability? Do people choose it or is it something chosen for them? If we say people can live without and should like without their culture and religion, what effect would that have on them? Could it lead them to isolation and could that lead mental health issues? Is it right for a nation to have laws that lead their citizens to have mental health issues? Isn't it beneficial for a nation to have an increase in mental health issues?
 
No-one should be exempt, especially no special group of people. Some laws aren't worth prosecuting though, which shouldn't be the case.
 
Laws should be rigid. Having flexible or confusing laws are dangerous as anyone can bend that law in an authoritative manner.

Unfortunately, people from all sides of politics bend laws in their favour, from the Left’s love for illegal immigration and “refugees” in USA/Europe, to many of the Right’s wanted conservative exceptions. Laws should be followed and enforced as it says on the tin, not be given exception or whatever.

However, if there is a written decree stating excemptions on cultural or religious beliefs, and that exception doesn’t take away any one else’s rights and doesn’t harm them, I think that’s fair. One religious exception I don’t agree with, and I honestly think should be banned, are the way some religions do animal sacrifices.
 
There already are people like this. Congressmen, police, etc
 
SolitaryScribe said:
I think any religious practice that causes harm to humans or animals should be banned.
Click to expand...

What kind of harm though? Physical? Psychological? What's more harmful physical or psychological pain? Wouldn't it be hard to ban religions that cause psychological harm? You could say in certain cases Catholicism and Calvinism can cause psychological harm to individuals. I think it would be really difficult to police.
 
Wave Surfer said:
What kind of harm though? Physical? Psychological? What's more harmful physical or psychological pain? Wouldn't it be hard to ban religions that cause psychological harm? You could say in certain cases Catholicism and Calvinism can cause psychological harm to individuals. I think it would be really difficult to police.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if there has been any case of a major religion causing psychological harm. In the case of the child sexual abuse scandal that happened with the Catholic church, those were incidents that didn't have anything to do with the actual teachings of the church.

However I do agree with you that psychological pain can be hard to police. There have been documented cases of cults brain washing people, and actively causing psychological harm. That being said people should have the freedom to follow a cult if they so choose, however the activities of this cult needs to be closely monitored by the government. The last thing we need is another mass suicide.

In the case for Calvinism, people have the freedom to follow that doctrine or reject it. No one is forced into it. Although I would agree it's messed up.
 
yaaarp said:
No-one should be exempt, especially no special group of people. Some laws aren't worth prosecuting though, which shouldn't be the case.
Click to expand...
IMO if it's not worth prosecuting someone who breaks a certain law then the law probably shouldn't exist.
MLMVSS said:
Laws should be rigid. Having flexible or confusing laws are dangerous as anyone can bend that law in an authoritative manner.

Unfortunately, people from all sides of politics bend laws in their favour, from the Left’s love for illegal immigration and “refugees” in USA/Europe, to many of the Right’s wanted conservative exceptions. Laws should be followed and enforced as it says on the tin, not be given exception or whatever.

However, if there is a written decree stating excemptions on cultural or religious beliefs, and that exception doesn’t take away any one else’s rights and doesn’t harm them, I think that’s fair. One religious exception I don’t agree with, and I honestly think should be banned, are the way some religions do animal sacrifices.
Click to expand...
Animal sacrifice is fucked up. Anyone who does it should absolutely be prosecuted for it.
 
Rick C-137 said:
Animal sacrifice is fucked up. Anyone who does it should absolutely be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

Now that I think about it more, I think animal sacrifices are one of those gray areas. For example, in many Jewish and Islamic traditions, it is often traditional to slaughter animals for certain feasts and practices of worship. These animals are killed as humanly as possible without any torture and are consumed by the multitude. I feel that these types of animal sacrifices are OK. Because they're really no different than us killing animals for harvest.

However if there is killing of animals which are not typically consumed (cats and dogs) or in a torture fashion, I would deem those to be illegal.
 
Homeless bro here, I am in the process of being legislated out of where I live. It's illegal to sit on the sidewalk in most places, illegal to lie anywhere, you can get slammed as a sex predator for peeing outside. "Camping" aka sleeping in your car is illegal. More and more places are making it illegal to give out food to the hungry. Basically I commit a misdemeanor every day when I fall asleep, which carries a huge fine, which I cannot pay, so I'm one police interaction away from jail time.
 
SolitaryScribe said:
Now that I think about it more, I think animal sacrifices are one of those gray areas. For example, in many Jewish and Islamic traditions, it is often traditional to slaughter animals for certain feasts and practices of worship. These animals are killed as humanly as possible without any torture and are consumed by the multitude. I feel that these types of animal sacrifices are OK. Because they're really no different than us killing animals for harvest.

However if there is killing of animals which are not typically consumed (cats and dogs) or in a torture fashion, I would deem those to be illegal.
Click to expand...
Killing an animal for food shouldn't be a problem. That has some reasoning to it. Killing them slowly or just for the purpose of killing them was the part I was reffrefer to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top