Spiritual adviser suing Chesterfield County

[moobu2]

Interesting lawsuit.

Maybe these fortune tellers and astrologers etc... should just do what (some) churches do - ask for donations. I will do this or that for X amount in a donations. "for a donation of $25.00 you will get a prayer cloth, for $25.00 more well throw in a CD of our healing sermon for $25.00 more we'll lay hands on the prayer cloth" etc...

A spiritual counselor has filed a lawsuit against Chesterfield County in U.S. District Court in Richmond, claiming that the county is discriminating against her and her beliefs through over-regulation.
Sophie King says Chesterfield is violating her constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and equal protection by failing to differentiate between fortunetellers and spiritual counselors.
King, who claims to be the latter, said she should not be subject to county requirement for fortunetelling businesses, which include a background check, character references, zoning restrictions, and a $300 business license tax, significantly more than for most other business categories.
"The law is ridiculous and totally unfair. It reminds me of the Dark Ages," said King, who has worked as a psychic for 17 years and who reads Tarot cards and provides other spiritual counseling.
King claims she is not a fortuneteller -- a term she says carries negative connotations -- because she does not predict the future.
Rather, she "relays information that she receives without knowing how it relates to the individual client or its specific chronological significance," according to the lawsuit.


<snip snip>

Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, agreed, saying "Chesterfield appears to be discriminating based on the content of speech, since some kinds of advice are allowed and other kinds not."
"While this case may not seem very compelling to the casual observer, it presents us with some very real and important questions about what constitutes an exercise of religion and the power of the government to interfere with a religious activity," he said.

Read more about this here

[niyad]

1. "is the first amendment for monotheists only?":

The Wild Hunt's Notes
Is The First Amendment for Monotheists Only?
Fri at 2:00am
A case coming before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could end up having major legal ramifications for all religious minorities in the United States. Wiccan chaplain Patrick McCollum has been fighting for years to overturn the State of California’s “five faiths policy”, which limits the hiring of paid chaplains to Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American adherents. While McCollum has suffered setbacks in his quest, with a California federal district court ruling in early 2009 that he had no standing to bring his suit, he recently gained support on appeal from several civil and religious rights groups who argue that his case should be heard.

“McCollum’s central claim strikes at the heart of the rights and freedoms that the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII were designed to guarantee. A state policy that classifies on the basis of religion (or any other protected ground) epitomizes disparate treatment that is properly subject to challenge by a member of the excluded group.” – From an Amicus Brief submitted by Americans United For Separation of Church and State, The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, The Interfaith Alliance, and The Hindu American Foundation

While decisions made so far have focused only on whether McCollum has standing as a taxpayer or non-inmate to bring his suit, a new Amicus Curiae filed by the National Legal Foundation, on behalf of a conservative activist organization called WallBuilders, argues that McCollum has no standing because modern Pagans aren’t guaranteed the same Constitutional rights and protections as Christian or monotheist citizens.

“The true historic meaning of “religion” excludes paganism and witchcraft, and thus, does not compel a conclusion that McCollum has state taxpayer standing … paganism and witchcraft were never intended to receive the protections of the Religion Clauses. Thus, in the present case there can be no violation of those clauses … Should this Court conclude that McCollum has taxpayer standing … this Court should at least acknowledge that its conclusion is compelled by Supreme Court precedent, not by history or the intent of the Framers.”

These statements, while certainly not representative of modern-day understandings of the Religion Clauses, have been seemingly welcomed by the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), as the amicus gives no indication that they are missing consent from the defense.

.....

http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-wild-hunt/is-the-first-amendment-for-monotheists-only/188125559977

[rd_kent]

2. ALL religions should be considered a business......

[DeSwiss]

3. And TAXED!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. For a moment, I wondered if they were referring to Chesterfield, Indiana

which is a big center for Spiritualists.