• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Tarot Card Reader Defended by ACLU

swellman

Thinker
S
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
244
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/29/odds_tarot.htm

ACLU advocates tarot reader's rights
By Associated Press, 7/29/2003

DICKSON, Tenn. (AP) A legal squabble was in the cards for fortuneteller Beth Daly.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit last week against the city of Dickson on behalf of Daly arguing city officials violated her free speech rights by barring her from selling her fortunetelling services.

ACLU director Hedy Weinberg says Daly is a law-abiding citizen who stopped selling $25 tarot readings at her store, Curiosity Corner New Age Shop, when told it was against the law. Daly then went to the ACLU for help in getting the law changed, but Dickson officials were unresponsive, Weinberg said.

...

Dickson prohibits anyone from making money as a fortuneteller. A city ordinance modified in 1980 makes it illegal for "any person to conduct the business of, solicit for, or ply the trade of fortuneteller, clairvoyant, hypnotist, spiritualist, palmist, phrenologist or other mystic endowed with supernatural powers."

...



Look out John Edwards!

Seriously, I thought such laws were in place in many jurisdictions throughout the country. I fail to see how not being allowed to charge money for something is a violation of free speech.
 
If the readings were free,
Then there would be permitted to continue doing them.

However, she is charging for them so I expect that there is a bit more to this story than first appears.
 
I would think that with suitable disclaimers she could proceed as usual...

something like that she does not guarantee the accuracy of her advice, not responsible for loss or damage from advice taken, entertainment purposes only, etc.

If she's willing to do that, and they still say it's not allowed, I could see it as an infringment on her rights.
 
Why was the law originally passed? Was it to protect the souls of stupid people from the clutches of Satan and his minions? Or was it to try to end fraud?

If it was for religious reasons then the ACLU is correct, The city is showing preference for one religion over another.

If it's to prevent fraud then we all need to head on over to Dickson and have a big ol' bash the ACLU party!
 
interesting, seems to me that you cannot block someone for charging for tarot cards without also outlawing horoscopes in magazines, religeous TV channels, in fact the whole paranormal economy!

jema
 
Which is why I was asking what prompted the law. I'm tending toward the "protect us from Satan" answer, just because I can be rather cynical.
 
swellman said:
or ply the trade of fortuneteller, clairvoyant, hypnotist, spiritualist, palmist, phrenologist or other mystic endowed with supernatural powers."
Click to expand...

Three things;

1. "ply the trade of fortuneteller" - even if she didn't charge money, they'd still get her on that.

2. Hypnotists not allowed? Guess you can't try to beat cigarettes by hypno. Try the patch.

3. "or other mystic endowed with supernatural powers" Does that imply that they believe that supernatural powers exist, and that certain people possess them? But that only mystics are enjoined against, and not other kinds of 'well-endowed' people?
 
From the last sentence in the article:

Dickson Councilwoman Linda Chambers says Daly is free to continue her tarot readings as long as the service is free.
 
Why not make it illegeal for churches to charge for annulments, baptisms and weddings??


How about we get a list of all current ACLU suits so we can efficently complain about them in one thread.
 
Tmy said:
Why not make it illegeal for churches to charge for annulments, baptisms and weddings??


How about we get a list of all current ACLU suits so we can efficently complain about them in one thread.
Click to expand...

Maybe because they're the good guys a lot of the time?
 
Tmy said:
How about we get a list of all current ACLU suits so we can efficently complain about them in one thread.
Click to expand...

No one is complaining about the ACLU yet. All I see are people reserving judgement until they know more.
 
Dragonrock said:


No one is complaining about the ACLU yet. All I see are people reserving judgement until they know more.
Click to expand...

I liekteh ACLU. Its just that 90% of the threads about them are started by anti-Aclu types. I was being sarcastic about complianing about them all at once.
 
While I don't see any difference, there is a difference between a ponzi scam and tarot card reading. The card reader just might be reading the future and not just scamming you.

It's beyond the scope of the ACLU to decide if card reading works.

One person agrees to pay, another to read. That's a done deal in America.

All the rest of us can do is try to explain why going to a reader is a waste of money.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
The ACLU of Tennessee's take on the issue is it's about free speech.
http://www.aclu-tn.org/whatsnew.html
Click to expand...
Right. Not if it works or not. Just if you have a right to say it does. Even if I don't think so. They say as much. Note the moon is made of green cheese line.
We just have to try to make people realize a green cheese moon is about as likely as card reading.
 
Even the ALCU sometimes gets it wrong... check out this week's commentary about the Michigan Theology student.

I disagree and I'm a huge ACLU supporter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom