Tweet
SAN FRANCISCO — A group opposed to male circumcision said on Tuesday they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify a proposal to ban the practice in San Francisco as a ballot measure for November elections.
My first thoughts on this would seem that the Northern CA dairy farmers are upset with the possibility of radioactive milk from the fallout in Japan and thought that perhaps they could start selling CA Fromunda Cheese. j/kBut legal experts said that even if it were approved by a majority of the city's voters, such a measure would almost certainly face a legal challenge as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.
What cracks me up is the leader of this group making such statements as if he actually remembers his briss. If that is the case, I am sure he can describe the interior of his mothers womb in fine detail too. He should continue though and fight to make it illegal for any male to sit while he takes a piss in public too!So the legal ramifications that would happen from this if passed into law:
The measure, which would only apply in San Francisco, would make it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years of age, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs. The maximum penalty would be a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Why not simply make it illegal to use the penis for ANYTHING other than a good piss, until you are 18 in SFCA.Josh Davis, professor and associate dean for faculty scholarship at the University of San Francisco School of Law, said the U.S. Supreme Court has previously indicated in rulings that "religions don't get a free pass."
"So if circumcision is the harm that's being targeted — because circumcision is perceived as causing harm, and not because it is a religious practice — it might well be a constitutionally valid law," he said.
I could care less one way or another if someone stays intact or gives a tip, but the fact that this has signatures and the push to make this into law while our country and the world spins in turmoil, is simply f'd up....only in SFCA though. "So if circumcision is the harm that's being targeted — because circumcision is perceived as causing harm, and not because it is a religious practice — it might well be a constitutionally valid law," he said.
Loved the one reply to this article that noted:
Schofield is just upset because he can't find enough other men to "dock" with.
Seriously though, this is just another chink in the armor of American freedom. Practically every religious practice can be viewed from a health perspective such as:
1) serving of wine in churches, this is obviously very bad and should banned not to mention that it is ritualized cannibalism
2) kneeling on knees in prayer: how many knee replacements do the tax payers have to pay for before this practice is outlawed?
On another note, where are the proponents who argue the benefits of circumcision? reduced STDs, improved hygiene, etc.
Seriously though, this is just another chink in the armor of American freedom. Practically every religious practice can be viewed from a health perspective such as:
1) serving of wine in churches, this is obviously very bad and should banned not to mention that it is ritualized cannibalism
2) kneeling on knees in prayer: how many knee replacements do the tax payers have to pay for before this practice is outlawed?
On another note, where are the proponents who argue the benefits of circumcision? reduced STDs, improved hygiene, etc.
Comment