In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) a Jehovah's Witness woman violated the law by allowing her 9-year-old ward to distribute pamphlets and receive voluntary contributions along with her. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, saying that the state had a compelling interest to prevent child labor.
My question is this: If this woman is unable to allow her ward to distribute pamphlets with her under freedom of religious exercise, where do Girl Scouts come in? They have no argument of freedom of religion but they are still making the rounds selling yummy, yummy cookies. Unlike the child in the court case the Girl Scouts are actually making money, rather than soliciting donations. Wouldn't the Girl Scouts more likely fall under the role of child labor than the Jehovah's Witness child? What gives the Girl Scouts the right to go door-to-door and not the child in the court case?
My question is this: If this woman is unable to allow her ward to distribute pamphlets with her under freedom of religious exercise, where do Girl Scouts come in? They have no argument of freedom of religion but they are still making the rounds selling yummy, yummy cookies. Unlike the child in the court case the Girl Scouts are actually making money, rather than soliciting donations. Wouldn't the Girl Scouts more likely fall under the role of child labor than the Jehovah's Witness child? What gives the Girl Scouts the right to go door-to-door and not the child in the court case?