Let's see Funyons ....Cheetos.... Funyons.... ooh frozen Snicker bars!

nfm

It has to be brownies.

How very droll.

-- Mal

The assertion that using pot is legally protected comes only from an official of the organization itself.

I'm not familiar with the details of Indiana's law, but it's probably similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The federal RFRA doesn't say "You can violate any and every law as long as you take the trouble to clothe your crime with religious trappings." Instead, it requires a more nuanced test. Courts must consider whether the challenged law substantially burdens someone's exercise of religion, whether it furthers a compelling government interest, and whether it is the least restrictive way to further that interest.

One obvious point is that this test very subjective. As was noted in the case of the Hobby Lobby decision, the five Catholic conservative men who voted that the RFRA provided an ACA exemption were probably predisposed to see even indirect support of contraception as a substantial burden and were not inclined to see universal health insurance as a compelling government interest. If, in Indiana, the wording of the statute is similar and the composition of the state Supreme Court is anti-pot, then the "cannataerians" will probably lose.

Another variable is whether courts can assess the sincerity of the asserted religious belief. Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but obviously its longstanding stricture against contraception was not adopted for the purpose of enabling its congregants (let alone its corporate congregants) to evade the ACA. By contrast, the First Church of Cannabis is, let's be honest, a sham. Either we allow sham religions to provide cover for people to defy laws they don't like (we'd soon see a religion that, like the Amish, teaches that payment of FICA taxes is sinful), or we put courts in the position of scrutinizing a self-proclaimed "church" to determine if its purported "adherents" really believe these doctrines. Neither of these outcomes is palatable, which is another reason the RFRA is a bad idea.

The muttonheads that wrote this law just opened a Pandora's box - this Church of Cannabis will be taken to court to try to declare its use of pot as illegal, which tramples on a a religious belief. The second that the state challenges the CofC, that is when the state puts itself in the position of deciding what is a "valid" religion, and what is not.. The Constitution forbids establishing a religion, and that is exactly what the state will be forced to do. The state has no other choice - they can't say that the CoC is not a religion, they cannot say which religious beliefs are valid and which are not.


This is going to be rich - the people who wrote this stupid law are going to have their asses handed to them, and they have no way out.

Oh that was bad.

For centuries, the Catholic church decreed that, based upon "and God breathed life into Adam" and two other Bible verses, that life begins at first breath. Further, the newborn was not declared "human" until it was baptized. So a woman who is refused an abortion, is having her religious beliefs trampled upon.

What about Sharia Law?