06-12-2015, 04:12 PM
(06-12-2015, 03:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.
I'm sorry you don't under stand what legal precedence is, but I have merely pointed out why this case is interesting based on past case law. Also I pointed out already why your "refuse blacks" argument doesn't relate to this case. The infringement of others rights to further your own has been repeatedly denied by the supreme court over the years. In this case it is a question of if a religion can in fact use marijuana for religious purposes. The answer to that is yes as has been upheld many times previously, the question that makes this different is what defines a religion? You don't know if it is part of practicing a religion until you have said what a religion is. The reason this is important is because of the religious freedoms act, which specifically says the government can't infringe unless it is to protect the greater good (see your whites only example and why it doesn't apply). I am basing my argument on legal precedent you are just pulling shit out of your ass.
