The reason I am saying all this is because the United States Supreme Court has made a decision that you cannot have religious expressions, but you can have commercial activity. That decision was in the Hobby Lobby case. They ruled that businesses could not have a Ten Commandments Clause, because they would deny people’s service if they did not agree with what the business said. There was a free speech argument at the time, but the court ruled for the businesses. So now we have a problem with the government, and they are using the court to force people into agreement with their decisions. This is not constitutional, it is very unfortunate.
The problem is not only that the Hobby Lobby decision was wrong, but the California legislature is doing the same thing. They passed an ordinance against a ban on a word that has been considered to be an offensive term, a ban on a prayer, or a ban on prayer being offered at meetings. This is not only against the First Amendment, but the Second and Amendment as well truyen phat giao.
There was a recent motion to suppress a complaint against the City of Azusa for violating the rights of the citizens in that area. That complaint was based upon a complaint that the city council of Azusa passed an ordinance which contained three words that are considered to be unconstitutional. These words are” disclaimer of liability”, “parole without parole” and “municipal authority”. This is the third part of the three pronged argument.
The plaintiffs in that case brought suit against the City of Azusa for violation of their constitutional rights. They claimed that the ordinance was a violation of their right to free speech under the first amendment. The court declined to rule on the merits, but the court did issue a restraining order, and the city complied. The court also found that the ordinance was a reasonable and therefore constitutional measure. In the past, the same three words were used, but not in California.
Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that the issue of whether or not the City of Azusa violated the rights of the plaintiffs is a separate question from the one decided in the third v. city of Geneva case. In my opinion, the third decision in that case required the courts to inquire into the reason why the State Supreme Court in exercising its sovereign power over the constitution and statutes of California, so much so as to invalidate a law which is grossly unfair, unreasonable, oppressive and capricious, and violative of the rights of the citizens of California. And, in my opinion, the second and third chambers of the California state legislature never intended that those words be interpreted as a prohibition on psychics providing services in this State.
Had the California legislature intended to ban all psychics from practicing in the State of California, there would have been nothing preventing the legislature from doing so. However, the court made an error in reaching that conclusion, perhaps because it was attempting to apply the same reasoning utilized in determining the constitutionality of a law that banned taxes on prayer, which the court found to be a violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, I would respectfully recommend a motion for recusal, which is usually the next step after a plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of winning on its claims regarding the ordinances. If this is done, the court will be able to avoid the costly expense of holding an evidentiary hearing on the matter, which might result in the dismissal of the case by the trial court.