06-12-2015, 03:17 PM
(06-12-2015, 03:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: What are you talking about? I gave you case law referring to the ability of the government to deny a "Religion" the ability to use drugs as part of it's practice. I am not talking about discrimination at all.
As for your church that refuses to serve black people example, completley different subject with no bearing on this issue. There is a concept when dealing with rights that basically says that ones rights end when it infringes on another's. This is the basis for why we don't allow discrimination and why some try and argue unsuccessfully that it is okay for them to discriminate because of their religion. The good of the many over ride the "rights" of a few especially when the "right" is the right to discriminate.
Use of marjiuana for religious use has been an acceptable defense in cases against Rastafarians. What will be interesting in this case is what makes a religion a religion. The defense is acceptable, but defining a religion is the tough part. Considering the IRS already gave him a tax exempt status as a religious body makes for an interesting show down.
Is it the job of the courts to "define" religions?
