Approve or not, it's a 1st Amend. thing

[tombogan03884]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1359454&srvc=rss

NEW BEDFORD -- A New Bedford barbershop has been closed after city officials found evidence of ritualistic animal sacrifice at the site.

Animal control officers on Tuesday removed two chickens and four roosters, one dead, from the shop’s basement, after fire and building inspectors found the birds during a routine safety inspection.

Animal Control Officer Emanuel Maciel tells The Standard-Times the chickens and roosters were kept in two pens next to a religious altar of candles, saint statues and hand-drawn religious symbols.

The barbershop’s owner faces animal cruelty charges.

Owner William Camacho says he practices Palo Mayombe, an Afro-Caribbean religion similar to Santeria, and his religious freedoms have been violated.

He says he does not sacrifice animals at the barbershop but only at religious ceremonies in rural settings.

[fightingquaker13]

This is pure BS. I sometimes wonder how damn stupid you have to be work for the government. A) When did getting your hair cut near a live chicken constitute a health risk? B) the Supreme Court ruled on exactly this issue in Church of  Babalu Aye v The City of Hialeah (of course it was in Florida ) in 1993. Basically they said killing chickens and goats was kosher and the city had to deal with it. It takes about a three second search on West Law or Lexis to save millions in law suits. How dumb do you have to be not to do that? AAARGH!
FQ13

[JC5123]

Personally I don't care one way or the other. He can slaughter all the animals he wants. I am curious as to the cause of death of the one chicken mentioned. That could prove the reasoning for the animal cruelty charges.

Ok constitutional scholars! Time to shine! My guess is that the founders never intended for the methods of a persons worship to be in violation of a state or federal law. And the first Amendment states that the fed cannot promote or discriminate against any particular religion.

So when you are doing something in the practice of your religion that violates the law, regardless of how stupid it may be, I don't see this as a violation of the first amendment simply because one of governments primary roles is to enforce the law. I know that this is a tricky situation, because animal sacrifice has been big in religion since the dawn of it. And it is easy to prove that was the purpose of the livestock.

My solution, charge him with animal cruelty, fine him and tell him to find a more humane place to keep his chickens. Religion never plays into it. It becomes all about the fact that he was keeping his live chickens in a basement.    

[tombogan03884]

Personally I don't care one way or the other. He can slaughter all the animals he wants. I am curious as to the cause of death of the one chicken mentioned. That could prove the reasoning for the animal cruelty charges.

Ok constitutional scholars! Time to shine! My guess is that the founders never intended for the methods of a persons worship to be in violation of a state or federal law. And the first Amendment states that the fed cannot promote or discriminate against any particular religion.

So when you are doing something in the practice of your religion that violates the law, regardless of how stupid it may be, I don't see this as a violation of the first amendment simply because one of governments primary roles is to enforce the law. I know that this is a tricky situation, because animal sacrifice has been big in religion since the dawn of it. And it is easy to prove that was the purpose of the livestock.

My solution, charge him with animal cruelty, fine him and tell him to find a more humane place to keep his chickens. Religion never plays into it. It becomes all about the fact that he was keeping his live chickens in a basement.     

That runs with my thinking as well.
In the article he claimed the sacrifices did not take place at the shop, so what killed the chicken ?
Also, barbers have certain sanitation requirements they have to meet, I suspect the chickens on the premises will be a bigger issue than the reason he kept them.
FQ, I caught the "Kosher" pun and got a chuckle out of it.
For those who may not know Jews need to have certain foods, including chickens, prepared or killed in a specific ritual manner in order for them to be proper, Hebrew word "Kosher".

[Solus]

Can't understand the big deal about a dead chicken.

I have two in my freezer.

When I was 11 I delivered the local daily newspaper to a poultry supply house where they slaughtered chickens.  I can promise you the chickens would prefer a religious ritual any day.

But religion should not be a factor.  If it is against the law to have live or dead chickens in a barbershop, the legality of that law should be judged outside of whether the barber is going to slaughter them for religious reasons.  The law should apply and have it's validity judged the same if the barber was keeping and slaughtering them for his Sunday Chicken Fry. (or Saturday)

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I suspect the "animal sacrifice" issue was mostly the newspaper trying to up circulation more than a concern of the city.
But that's just my opinion.

[fightingquaker13]

If they have a "content neutral" way to get the guy they can. But if he can make the case they are going after him for his religion they are screwed. As Solus points out "animal cruelty" in regards to chickens is a tough sell. I mean the bird we ate for dinner had its beak filed off, and was pumped full of antibiotics so it would not die from disease in the 2 foot cage it spent its whole life in. What do we call that? Finger Licking Good. You really want to charge this guy? A first year law student can make a solid case for selective prosecution. If he wants to be a dick about it he can bring in PETA folks as expert witnesses. Bottom line, the city would be well advised to simply apologize and walk away from this one. No good will come of it.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

FQ, I think the real issue will boil down to why the one chicken died in captivity, and why wasn't it removed in a timely manner, like say, before the Health and Fire safety inspection.
 I think that will give them their "content neutral" angle.