Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    ANSWER: No, She Is Not Guilty of Immorality On The Ground That Being A Member of Jehovah's Witnesses

    Uploaded by

    Ali Basti
    A court interpreter who was living with a separated man without being married claimed religious freedom as a defense, as her religion of Jehovah's Witnesses allowed such an arrangement. The Supreme Court precedent established that while the state has an interest in upholding morals, religious freedom is also an important right. As the interpreter's religion permitted her living situation and no compelling state interest outweighed her religious exercise, she could not be penalized for her arrangement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ANSWER: No, She Is Not Guilty of Immorality On The Ground That Being A Member of Jehovah's Witnesses

    Uploaded by

    Ali Basti
    8 views1 page
    A court interpreter who was living with a separated man without being married claimed religious freedom as a defense, as her religion of Jehovah's Witnesses allowed such an arrangement. The Supreme Court precedent established that while the state has an interest in upholding morals, religious freedom is also an important right. As the interpreter's religion permitted her living situation and no compelling state interest outweighed her religious exercise, she could not be penalized for her arrangement.

    Original Description:

    full

    Original Title

    Philo Qnaw

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A court interpreter who was living with a separated man without being married claimed religious freedom as a defense, as her religion of Jehovah's Witnesses allowed such an arrangement. The Supreme Court precedent established that while the state has an interest in upholding morals, religious freedom is also an important right. As the interpreter's religion permitted her living situation and no compelling state interest outweighed her religious exercise, she could not be penalized for her arrangement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    8 views1 page

    ANSWER: No, She Is Not Guilty of Immorality On The Ground That Being A Member of Jehovah's Witnesses

    Uploaded by

    Ali Basti
    A court interpreter who was living with a separated man without being married claimed religious freedom as a defense, as her religion of Jehovah's Witnesses allowed such an arrangement. The Supreme Court precedent established that while the state has an interest in upholding morals, religious freedom is also an important right. As the interpreter's religion permitted her living situation and no compelling state interest outweighed her religious exercise, she could not be penalized for her arrangement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    A court interpreter in the trial court was found to be living-in with a separated man without the benefit of

    marriage, but the arrangement had the blessing of her religion, which was Jehovahs Witnesses. Charged with
    immorality and threatened with dismissal, she pleads religious freedom.
    Is the court interpreter guilty of immorality, which warrants dismissal from service in the judiciary?
    ANSWER: No, she is not guilty of immorality on the ground that being a member of Jehovahs Witnesses,
    she is guaranteed the free exercise of her religion which includes an arrangement to live-in with a separate man
    without the benefit of marriage, an arrangement which is allowed by the Jehovahs Witnesses.
    In Estrada v. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651, 4 August 2003 and 22 June 2006), the Supreme Court, through
    then Senior Associate Justice and now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, held that in this particular case and under these
    distinct circumstances, respondent Soledad Escritors conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she had made out
    a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Court recognized that
    state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms including religious freedom may be enjoyed. In the area of
    religious exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and
    so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state
    that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such compelling state interest exists, man must be
    allowed to subscribe to the Infinite. The administrative complaint against Soledad Escritor was thus dismissed.
    In the case at bar, the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of religion clause under Section 5 of Article III
    and under the Supreme Court ruling in Estrada v. Escritor renders the court interpreter not guilty of immorality,
    being a member of Jehovahs Witnesses.

    You might also like