First Church of Cannabis

[*michaelsean*]

(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.

We are talking about a specific law that goes against your concept of rights which is why this law is so controversial so my "Can't serve black people" church is absolutely relevant, which is why this law can be used as a defense.  You don't get to just say, 'It's a religious belief" and everyone walks away.  It's is saying you can use it as a defense, and a jury can decide.