Reply #63

In the discussion thread: States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law? [View all]

Mon May 28, 2012, 06:08 PM

jberryhill (29,865 posts)

63. The federal courts of New York didn't think so...

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 06:10 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

...when they overturned an earlier version of NY's kosher law on First Amendment grounds.

New York re-drafted the law in question, and it was upheld by the Second Circuit earlier this month in Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker. Whether it goes up to the Supreme Court from there is an open question.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

66 replies	Author	Time	Post
States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law? [View all]	no_hypocrisy	May 2012	OP
The State of New York enforces Jewish law	jberryhill	May 2012	#1
Shocking though it might be, kosher is not the only Jewish "law."	aquart	May 2012	#11
The state of New York set up a school district just for Orthodox kids	KamaAina	May 2012	#43
Go ahead.	aquart	May 2012	#2
The "banning" of these types of laws is illogical	treestar	May 2012	#3
It's worse than illogical	jberryhill	May 2012	#4
Not really, because you'd need to label the pork as something other than pork	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#7
And that's where you are wrong	jberryhill	May 2012	#9
Because you have to say it is not pork. Does the law allow one to sell beef as lamb? No.	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#10
Nope, I sell it as "Halal pork"	jberryhill	May 2012	#13
And what of the jurisdictions with halal laws, which you claim do not exist?	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#35
Then you are simply ignorant of the Kansas Law	jberryhill	May 2012	#40
Gee councilor surly, I said in my post I do not know what that law says. I said you might be right	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#47
You've never been "snippy"?	jberryhill	May 2012	#50
Again, the personal nature of your attacks is not called for.	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#54
All that means is "lawful" pork (or "fit/appropriate" pork).	MADem	May 2012	#53
Strangely enough, "halal" housewives won't be buying your "halal pork."	aquart	May 2012	#17
It was an extreme example	jberryhill	May 2012	#19
The fraudulent beef example is better for it lacks the I assume unintended implication	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#38
Are they really applying Sharia law or just trying to come up with a definition?	treestar	May 2012	#22
The subsidiary fact question turns on a question of religious law	jberryhill	May 2012	#31
But it's still only applying that to a fact question within American law	treestar	May 2012	#52
The relevant text of the Kansas law....	jberryhill	May 2012	#55
And it could add cases that wouldn't have been filed before	treestar	May 2012	#59
Orthodox Jews	edhopper	May 2012	#5
And your point?	aquart	May 2012	#18
The point is that that's why they aren't being targetted by legislation. (nt)	Posteritatis	May 2012	#66
one reason perhaps Sharia law is singled out and targeted for ban by repugs	lunasun	May 2012	#23
What does it say in the constitution?	Rosa Luxemburg	May 2012	#6
What about orthodox any law?	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#8
All religious law should be banned; Canon Law, Rabbinical Courts, and Sharia Law	FarCenter	May 2012	#12
So, you agree that courts should not enforce contracts or wills, right?	jberryhill	May 2012	#14
Contracts and Wills are religious laws?	cleanhippie	May 2012	#15
Simple	jberryhill	May 2012	#16
Unless kosher is a defined term in the commercial code of the state, it is unenforceable.	FarCenter	May 2012	#20
Hello, and welcome to the thread about "banning" religious law	jberryhill	May 2012	#24
The company that I formerly worked sold "Orthodox Union" certified products	Nikia	May 2012	#60
Yes, it is another religious racket	FarCenter	May 2012	#62
Funny, that is a civil case	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#21
So?	jberryhill	May 2012	#27
What part of fraud are you missing	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#49
When the determination of "fraud" depends on a determination of religious law	jberryhill	May 2012	#51
Usually Kosher products are certified	Nikia	May 2012	#61
The federal courts of New York didn't think so...	jberryhill	May 2012	#63
It's still deciding American law	treestar	May 2012	#25
Yes, you win the prize - "religious law" can be a subsidiary fact question	jberryhill	May 2012	#29
It is probably unenforceable as against public policy	FarCenter	May 2012	#37
Okay, but you get the point	jberryhill	May 2012	#42
Sticking strictly to your example, define "kosher" for the purposes of the court.	cleanhippie	May 2012	#28
The USDA doesn't have to set the guidelines	jberryhill	May 2012	#30
No, the question will be whether the defendant and the plaintiff are working from the same	cleanhippie	May 2012	#33
If I take you to court	jberryhill	May 2012	#44
The burden will be on you to prove that I did not fulfill my part of the contract.	cleanhippie	May 2012	#57
That's an easy burden to carry	jberryhill	May 2012	#58
You are also missing the HUGE elephant in the room - binding arbitration	jberryhill	May 2012	#36
You are now moving the goalposts. Stop adding conditions to try and meet your case.	cleanhippie	May 2012	#39
I did...	jberryhill	May 2012	#46
A sensible judge would require the spirits of the dead to show up and testify, or throw the case out	WriteWrong	May 2012	#64
That's not how cases involving arbitration enforcement work	jberryhill	May 2012	#65
actually, I don't believe any state has banned Sharia Law	cali	May 2012	#26
I stand corrected, thank you.	no_hypocrisy	May 2012	#32
your point is entirely valid	cali	May 2012	#41
Or Fundamentalist Christian Law	obamanut2012	May 2012	#34
Sure right after	libodem	May 2012	#45
And yet these idiots see nothing ironic about trying to impose	mythology	May 2012	#48
All religious extremist law should be banned.	Initech	May 2012	#56

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.