Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday April 06 2015, @05:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-than-sacramental-wine dept.

AlterNet reports

In a classic case of "unintended consequences", the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana may have opened the door for the establishment of the First Church of Cannabis in the Hoosier State.

While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State's office, reports RTV6.

Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church's registration has been approved, writing, "Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana - "Congratulations your registration has been approved!" Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health."

Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26PM (#167116) Journal

    Businesses are quasi public places. Seriously, just try operating a profitable business without a public to serve. About the only one I can think of is money laundry, and even then, a paying public is sort of essential at being able to do a good job at hiding ill-gotten gains in legitimate revenue.

    Secondly, businesses use services (fire, police, dog catchers), utilities (water, sewer), and roads that are paid for by the public as a whole. To turn around and say to that public which pays for that infrastructure: "I'm going to pick and choose who among you monetary contributors I will serve", is for that business to become a freeloader, a bum. The public has a right to expect that those who use public infrastructure for personal profit will serve the general public as a whole. I say this as a business owner myself.

    Now, you can refuse to do business with someone because they are rude, don't pay their bills, or any number of valid reasons. Saying "Whites Only" or "Straights Only" though -- that's based on nothing but prejudice and has no valid business basis. Now, if you are a private person who is not running a business open to the public -- you can be as bigoted as you want because unlike a business, you aren't making a personal profit on the publicly provided infrastructure.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:45AM (#167270) Journal

    Just to nitpick, saying, e.g., "Whites only" may be because you believe that your other customers will go somewhere else if non-white customers start showing up. This may even be a true belief.

    And my response is, "Too bad". To exclude people because their presence offends other people is both unethical and immoral. That in a major class of businesses it is also illegal is not something I regret. And if this means that a certain class of business is unable to operate profitably, then we should just do without that class of business. Too often "business exclusivity" has been used as an enabler for unjustifiable discrimination, even when it's not directly an operation of unjustifiable discrimination (as it is in public accommodations).

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:09AM

    by Sir Finkus (192) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:09AM (#167302) Journal

    Secondly, businesses use services (fire, police, dog catchers), utilities (water, sewer), and roads that are paid for by the public as a whole. To turn around and say to that public which pays for that infrastructure: "I'm going to pick and choose who among you monetary contributors I will serve", is for that business to become a freeloader, a bum.

    I utilize and am protected by those public services on a regular basis. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to determine who I let in my house or who I associate with based on any criteria I want? Sure if I don't want to be friends with a black guy because he's black (or gay, or a woman), I'm an asshole, but I have the right to be an asshole

    I understand why people balk at these sorts of laws, and why "anti discrimination" laws are passed, but I'd argue that they're a rather severe restriction on free speech.

    I do make a few exceptions, for very basic things like privately-owned utilities and real estate because they represent natural monopolies.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:33PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:33PM (#167478) Journal

      Here is the distinction:

      Are you making a personal profit utilizing a publicly provided service?

      Yes (aka Business): serve the public as a whole.
      No (aka Private Home): be a bigot as much as you want.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:58PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:58PM (#167411) Homepage
    This may make me unpopular, but I think the freedom to chose, for any reason at all, with whom you do business should be the overriding freedom for private businesses. Simply because that choice is reflexive, and therefore I would hope that "no blacks", "no whites", "no irish", etc. establishments alienate themselves from the bulk of the market, suffer financially, and eventually die out. The sooner the better, such attitudes are regressive for society. Nobody should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to.

    I go to pubs with "no stag parties" signs on the doors. That's their right. I like the policy, they get my money. Stag parties don't like the policy, they don't get their money. That's how it should be. Fancy clubs with a "no trainers" policy don't get my custom similarly, because they don't want it - their right. That's what the free market is supposed to be about. There are always choices - express your support or your disgust with your wallet. The best thing about that, and in fact the reason I came to hold that view, is that it is the natural default, it is the absence of any law.

    Of course, none of this applies to public services. The state shouldn't have opinions, preferences, biases, or prejudices on such matters. Citizenship is boolean.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:06PM (#167467)

      This may make me unpopular, but I think the freedom to chose, for any reason at all, with whom you do business should be the overriding freedom for private businesses

      So you think "separate but equal" shops should compete against each other on the market, and then if one of them collapses, the people they refuse to serve should just suck it up and deal with it, because they had their chance and the market decided they shouldn't be served. Awesome.