06-12-2015, 05:30 PM
(06-12-2015, 05:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yes they can be denied certain practices. As I pointed out that case (from the 1800's) determined they could not practice polygamy even though it was part of an obscure sect of Mormonism. No one practices it now because it was deemed illegal and did not meet the requirements of a religious exemption. The improve health argument would never hold up as there is not enough proof either way. The public health and interest only needs to show that allowing it would cause harm. Would they be successful proving that? Who knows but the fact remains that, yes the government can deny you the ability to practice certain aspects of your religion.
As for the other case the connection here is if the guy actually does believe what he is saying or is it a scheme to smoke pot. If it is determined the guy had told people he was doing this as a way to circumvent the law it would be determined he does not actually believe his religion to be a real thing therefor making it false.
Does peyote improve health? Is it not more of an intoxicant that pot is? From a precedent standpoint, that appears to be a fairly weak argument to make. And this church now has a lot of members (I for instance am one of them). How could the court possibly attempt to question the motives of the entire group? Just think of the implications. I can't see them going there with this.
