General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law? [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If the contract said "kosher", and I present evidence in the form of testimony from a Rabbi that the food was not kosher, then I've discharged my burden.
If you are going to say, "Well my personal definition of kosher is...." then I'm going to win on motions, and there's not even going to be a trial. The reason is that I have presented objective evidence that the food was not kosher, and you have not. You have presented no objective evidence on the point in issue at all.
You had said above that your only defense was going to be something along the lines of your personal subjective belief, and not by reference to any religious authority on the subject. Contracts are not interpreted and applied that way.
Subsidiary fact questions can turn on questions of religious law, and they do so all of the time.
During Vietnam, when men who were Baptists or Catholics claimed "conscientious objector" status to avoid the draft, why do you suppose their claims were denied, while the claims of Quakers were not? It is because courts had come to conclusions on questions of "What do Baptists, Catholics, and Quakers believe about war?" These were court decisions premised entirely on religious beliefs.
If you Google this, you'll probably enjoy it:
Mark Popovsky, The Constitutional Complexity of Kosher Food Laws, 44 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 75 (2010)
The Second Circuit disagrees with Professor Popovsky, though: Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats Inc. v. Hooker 11-3517-cv (2nd Cir., May 2012)