Tribute to a Hollywood legend, Love Connection Host, Back in Two and Two, Navy Vet, former Host of Blunt Force Truth w/ @markyoungtruth never forgotten
Senator, if you are correct that it was a political decision by the Justices, what is your response to Barrett’s point?
Justice Barrett in concurrence has this powerful zinger: “What if a State made it a crime to wear religious head garb (say, a hijab) onto private property open to the public without obtaining express authorization? Could that statute evade constitutional scrutiny? On Hawaii and the principal dissent’s logic, the answer is apparently yes: No one has the right to enter another’s property without permission, and the State has merely adjusted the default to require permission to be clear. But that is plainly wrong. Because the law regulates religious and expressive conduct, its enactment is state action that triggers First Amendment scrutiny.”
Should HAWAII be able to pass a law requiring people get the property owner’s permission in advance to wear a cross or a Star of David? Presumably you are saying yes.