Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Re: " Judge rules against vegan suit/Practitioners may not claim religious discrimination, " by Bob Egelko, S.F. Chronicle, Saturday, September 14, 2002 Vegan Conscientious Objection In throwing out the discrimination lawsuit of vegan Jerold Friedman, the court ruled his beliefs not religious because they don't deal with such things as " theories of humankind's nature or its place in the universe... " Yet doesn't ethical veganism (as compared with veganism for health reasons) deal directly with " humankind's place in the universe " vis a vis our fellow sentient beings? The court also cited " (t)he absence of religious ceremonies, teachers or leaders, holidays and other conventions. " We get into murky waters trying to define what religion is and isn't. The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Seeger (1964) wisely took a functional approach, ruling Mr. Seeger was entitled to conscientious objector draft status because his moral beliefs played an EQUIVALENT role in his life as religious beliefs play in the lives of religious persons. I hope the courts higher up the appeals ladder will follow the lead of U.S. v. Seeger. The question is not whether veganism is a religion, but whether Mr. Friedman's beliefs are for him the EQUIVALENT of religious beliefs. Billy Ray Boyd 40 Prentiss St. San Francisco, CA 94110 415-820-1515 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.