272-36 makes denying Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost a crime punishable by imprisonment in jail, luckily, for not more than one year.
136-5 makes it illegal to conduct business on Sundays
207-38, 207-39, and 207-40 have a list of religions the ministers/priests/imams of which are allowed to marry people. Christians, Muslims and Baha'is are included, us Pastafarians are not.
6-101 creates a "obscene literature control commission" that has to include a Protestant, a Catholic, and a Jew. This time not only us Pastafarians, but Muslims and Bahais are excluded as well
94-156 regulates the usage of words "Jewish" and "Kosher" as applied to products. The whole thing should be repealed and the word "Kosher" should be controlled as any trademark is.
But my favorite so far is
272-79A that specifies how not to cut horse tails.
I, Laurel, wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God by denying, cursing and contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, and by cursing and contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, and by cursing or contumeliously reproaching and exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures. I realize that by doing so, under Commonwealth law I shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
<
p>D.A. Conley, come get me.
…root around at DumbLaws.com It isn’t just MA that has dumb laws that the legislature hasn’t bothered to repeal.
<
p>BTW, “Kosher” isn’t a trademark.
What I’m saying is that Microsoft doesn’t need a special law regulating the use of “Where do you want to go today” phrase. They are quite satisfied by using the existing trademark law. I don’t see how regulating the usage of the word “Kosher” is different.
It’s a regulation prohibiting a particular form of animal cruelty. The title says it all:
<
p>“Cutting bones or muscles to dock or set tail of horse; wound as evidence”
<
p>The law isn’t about the proper way to cut a horse’s tail; it’s about prohibiting the permanent removal of the tail, through the mutilation of the animal.
for dog’s tails, too? How about cat tails? Don’t forget pet bunnies, hamsters and lizards – they have tails too!
<
p>I would applaud any generic law against animal cruelty. But going into specifics on horses, muscles and tendons is just too much and tells me the lawmakers have too much time on their hands.
i’ll bet the law was written when horses were an important form of transportation and farm machinery. as such, they probably did warrant direct consideration. were household pets so pervasive and doted upon 100 years ago (or shenever the law was passed)?
Section 6 of MGL Ch. 136, pretty much negates Section 5, as it exempts just about commercial activity you can think of from falling under Section 5.