I mean both fighters are pretty much awol... I think Smith just did a short interview which I will check out but jeez. Gustafsson is the second most famous fighter Smith has fought. I realize he's coming off a tough L but shit man I feel like he is especially missing out on an opportunity to put himself out there a little more.
I guess I'm not a professional and maybe the argument would be that Jones was as high profile as it gets and he didn't deliver. Keeping it low profile and hoping for a good performance might bet he way to go rather than risking another highly publicized loss. I dunno.
In Smith v Oregon, Smith was fired from his job as a drug counselor for smoking peyote as part of a native American religious ritual. He was denied unemployment by Oregon because he was fired for drug use, and he appealed on the grounds that the drug in question was religiously used.
Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that it was entirely correct for Oregon to do this. Here's a few excerpts that explain his reasoning:
>We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. …
>Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. …
>Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
In response a wide range of usually opposing organizations joined forces to decry the decision in Smith v Oregon and pushed for Congress to pass the somewhat creepily named Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Everyone from the ACLU to the Southern Baptist Convention said that the Scalia decision was horrible.
But I don't see how it is. As a radical liberal siding with Scalia and against the ACLU really rubs me the wrong way, but in this case I don't see how he isn't right and the ACLU isn't wrong.
No one has ever argued for a blanket exemption to laws for religious reasons. No one is, for example, arguing that Thugees should be permitted to murder because their religion demands it.
Instead, they argue that when law and religion conflict the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping the activity illegal, and if it can't then the religious person gets an exemption to the law.
And that seems utterly wrong to me. If it is legal for members of a particular religion to smoke peyote then keeping it illegal for everyone else seems manifes
... keep reading on reddit ➡
In light of the Texans controversy people are expecting them to have a poor game. I had Watson and Fuller starting so any thoughts on switching one/both of them for Smith and/or Pryor?
