Euless (TX) asks judge to dismiss Santeria lawsuit

Monday, February 05, 2007

EULESS
Suburb seeks dismissal of suit

Sued by a Santeria priest barred from sacrificing animals in his home, the Dallas suburb of Euless has asked a federal judge to dismiss a religious discrimination lawsuit on the grounds that making an exception forces the city to favor a religion over secular law.

Jose Merced, 45, alleges that city officials denied him a permit to perform Santeria ceremonies that include slaughtering chickens and goats inside his home, even though people outside would not have been able to see or hear them.

In a motion to dismiss filed Jan. 24, the city argues that a 2000 federal law forcing local governments to show a compelling public interest before limiting a religious practice is unconstitutional, because it intrudes on a state's right to regulate the health and welfare of its residents.

City attorney William McKamie said that because Euless' ban on animal slaughter is a health and safety issue, any exception means the city would effectively endorse Santeria over city law.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/05/5roundup.html

Would they, or have they, tried to enforce laws barring serving alcohol to minors to stop the giving of Sacramental wine to teenagers?

Does this "exception" mean that the city is endorsing certain Christian beliefs over city and state law?

.. could argue with a straight face that the state had a real interest in preventing an adolescent from taking about a teaspoon of wine in some religious ceremony, because the laws governing alcohol and minors are clearly intended to prevent inebriation and its effects.

Whether the state has a real interest in preventing the killing of animals is perhaps a different question. Here perhaps the conclusion is less clear: killing animals for food seems to be entirely acceptable, while killing them for sport seems to be acceptable only in hunting -- and hunters typically profess to eat what they kill. Moreover, a history of cruelty to animals is often considered to be associated with elevated risk of future harm to other people. I doubt that Euless will argue this case well or that the ultimate ruling will be a model of logic.

a "non-majority" religion, as opposed to letting a 'mainstream' religion dominate the politics ...

The free exercise of religion has to be granted to those that the "majority" don't like, too. From what I have read, the animals in these cases are treated as well, if not better, than animals in a slaughterhouse.

I reall don't like the people in our country all that much sometimes. Present company excluded.

They may be treated better, but they are dying for no good reason. At least it can be argued that in slaughterhouses, the animals are being killed to be consumed, not for the sake of some stupid ass religion.

Every day, I hate religion more and more.....

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus ...
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
No. 91-948. Argued November 4, 1992 -- Decided June 11, 1993

... The animals are killed by cutting their carotid arteries and are cooked and eaten following all Santeria rituals except healing and death rites ...

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts <etc etc> ...

The ordinances' texts and operation demonstrate that they are not neutral, but have as their object the suppression of Santeria's central element, animal sacrifice ... The legitimate governmental interests in protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals could be addressed by restrictions stopping far short of a flat prohibition of all Santeria sacrificial practice, such as general regulations on the disposal of organic garbage, on the care of animals regardless of why they are kept, or on methods of slaughter ... Each of the ordinances pursues the city's governmental interests only against conduct motivated by religious belief and thereby violates the requirement that laws burdening religious practice must be of general applicability ... The ordinances .. are not narrowly tailored to accomplish the asserted governmental interests ...

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-948.ZS.html

Thank you for the clarification. I more or less agree with Goblinmonger then.