Thursday, July 04, 2013
Free Legal Advice
This story caught my eye. A California state employee ordered a woman to take off or hide her two inch long cross on a necklace while the woman was at a Sonoma State freshman orientation fair.
Point one: The constitution does prohibit the federal government from creating a state religion but it just as strongly prohibits anyone in government from prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.
Point two: Wearing a Christian symbol is part of the free exercise of the Christian religion.
Point three: 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the federal statute to use to sue any government employee who violates your civil rights of which the free exercise is certainly one, indeed it is given a premier spot in the Constitution.
Point four: There is no constitutional amendment or natural law right not to be offended.
So say politely no, I will not and if you ask me again I will bring an 1983 action against the agency you belong to and against YOU personally.
If just an ordinary citizen does it, suggest that he or she perform a sex act alone. You don't have to use those words.
Point one: The constitution does prohibit the federal government from creating a state religion but it just as strongly prohibits anyone in government from prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.
Point two: Wearing a Christian symbol is part of the free exercise of the Christian religion.
Point three: 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the federal statute to use to sue any government employee who violates your civil rights of which the free exercise is certainly one, indeed it is given a premier spot in the Constitution.
Point four: There is no constitutional amendment or natural law right not to be offended.
So say politely no, I will not and if you ask me again I will bring an 1983 action against the agency you belong to and against YOU personally.
If just an ordinary citizen does it, suggest that he or she perform a sex act alone. You don't have to use those words.
Labels: Free Exercise Clause; 42 U.S.C. 1983
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:15 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The text of 1983 does not appear to include persons at the federal level -- i.e., border patrol, federal marshals, TSA agents, non-sworn personnel, and the like? Is that correct?
If that is correct, is there an analogous law w/r/t federal officers/agents?
If that is correct, is there an analogous law w/r/t federal officers/agents?
# posted by 
: 1:24 PM
: 1:24 PM
I believe you are right. Despite the 11th Amendment, the law seems only to apply to people acting under color of state law. I'm looking at 1986 actions (kind of like civil misprision) but I've never even considered suing a federal employee. I think you've found a hole in my legal education here. I'll keep trying and post later.
I think the admin of this site is truly working hard in favor of
his site, because here every stuff is quality based data. Instant legal support
Post a Comment
his site, because here every stuff is quality based data. Instant legal support
<< Home
