Is the consumption of liquor both a moral obligation and a sacred right?

I doubt it.

But don’t tell that to a group known as “Ethereal Enigmatic Euphoric Movement towards Civilized Hedonism, LTD.” That group sued the State of Idaho in federal court:

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is an organization comprised of individuals who believe that the “consumption of distilled spirits is both [a] moral obligation and sacred right.” It further alleges that, using Idaho’s local-option law, the City of Preston enacted a prohibition on the sale of liquor by the drink, and that this prohibition violates the rights of Plaintiff’s members to freely exercise their religion and discriminates against them because of their religious beliefs. Apparently, Plaintiff holds its services on the premises of the Owl Club, a local beer and wine saloon operating in Preston, which does not sell distilled spirits pursuant to the city’s prohibition. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief against the State of Idaho under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and under the Twenty-First Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under Title II, and under state law.

Here is the order kicking the group’s case out of court.

No matter what I might have mumbled from the fraternity rooftop while in college, drinking liquor is not a moral obligation (or even a sacred right). And it’s certainly not something that you should do when drafting and prosecuting a federal lawsuit.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • email

Speak Your Mind