# Resolved: Montgomery Cty, MD does not have the right to ban fortune-telling. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720 "2009-08-17T14:22:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/81 "2009-08-18T15:56:46Z")
Since the point is being missed, the link between fortune-telling and going to the movies is that both are selling fiction, both could be taken as fact by idiots (see: Blair Witch Project, JFK), both are about the experience, and both involve really bad acting by people who are grossly overpaid. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/82 "2009-08-18T16:06:18Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Which ones are those? How should I know? I don’t know what goods and services they all offer. It’s about the details of whatever commercial enterprises they may be involved in, not about monolithic groups. Faith healing, for instance, while always bullshit, is not commercial fraud unless the subjects are being charged money to be fake healed. It depends on individual circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/83 "2009-08-18T16:12:14Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Since the point is being missed, the link between fortune-telling and going to the movies is that both are selling fiction, both could be taken as fact by idiots (see: Blair Witch Project, JFK), both are about the experience, and both involve really bad acting by people who are grossly overpaid. If a fortune teller admits up front that he or she can’t really tell the future, and that all readings are creative, “fictional” performances, then there’s no fraud. How many of them do that? If they’re selling themselves as genuine, then they’re lying. The movies you mentioned did not claim to be documentaries. That’s the difference. Psychic scammers claim to be real. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/84 "2009-08-18T16:46:27Z")
So, movies that claim to be documentaries are different? What if it says it’s a documentary but is a passel of lies? How about “based on a true story”? How about the ones that claim to be based on a novel but have little or nothing in common with the novel (My Friend Flicka! ARGH!)? Are those fraud? I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway. People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats. I’ve never been inside a fortune teller establishment. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have signs up saying it’s all for entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/85 "2009-08-18T17:03:09Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Many “carny” type activities are traditionally or commonly linked to frauds, but the proper response isn’t to outlaw the county fair, but to regulate and crack down on the fraudsters. Nobody is proposing to outlaw the county fair. That would be an overly broad reaction to an interest in banning fortune telling, because the cotton candy merchant shouldn’t be held to account for the shady business going on two doors down at Madame Zeldas. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway. People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats. I don’t believe Montgomery County or anyone else is particularly concerned about someone paying $5 or $20 on a lark to hear some mumbo-jumbo. The concern is more about the people who are routinely conned into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for seances, cleansings, and all that other junk that these places peddle once they’ve found a mark. And I don’t wish to belittle the loss that your mother in law suffered, but one could argue that at least the games she played at the casino offered the chance for a payout, even though the house would have a clear 5% (or greater) advantage in every game. But it does not seem that the games she played were rigged in any way. In contrast, there is zero chance that fortune telling can offer any legitimate service, payout, or returned value that would be anything greater than either temporarily sating the gullibility or further allowing a victimization of the customer. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/86 "2009-08-18T17:22:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What about the ones they classify as nonfiction? You mean, the ones where they accurately report the publisher’s classification of it as being nonfiction? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > From the link: > > Granted, that’s under “editorial reviews”–but if they’re referring to non-in-house editors, I sure can’t tell that from this page. Those claims appear to be claims made by Amazon about the book. > > Call the FBI? Here are those five elements of fraud given earlier: (1) a false statement of a material fact, - I grant this, despite your failure to prove that the specific book doesn’t work 😛 (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, - Can you show that the reviewer didn’t believe what they wrote to be accurate? (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, - Can you show that the reviewer was intending to decieve, rather than just reporting the author’s claims? Some of those editorial reviews read like they’re copied straight from promotional materials. (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and - granted (some people are, what’s the word? Oh yes, “chuckleheads”.) (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. - granted. (Small injury, the price of a book, but still it technically is one.) So yeah, given points 2 and 3 I think you’d have a tough road to hoe, particularly if you wanted to attach to the _big_ money pot of Amazon itself. (You can be quite certain that Amazon will tell you it had no intent to decieve, but was merely providing an impartial delivery system for books and reviews and the like.) But feel free to give it a shot if you like. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/87 "2009-08-18T17:28:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t believe Montgomery County or anyone else is particularly concerned about someone paying $5 or $20 on a lark to hear some mumbo-jumbo. The concern is more about the people who are routinely conned into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for seances, cleansings, and all that other junk that these places peddle once they’ve found a mark. > > And I don’t wish to belittle the loss that your mother in law suffered, but one could argue that at least the games she played at the casino offered the chance for a payout, even though the house would have a clear 5% (or greater) advantage in every game. But it does not seem that the games she played were rigged in any way. In contrast, there is zero chance that fortune telling can offer any legitimate service, payout, or returned value that would be anything greater than either temporarily sating the gullibility or further allowing a victimization of the customer. You can belittle anything about my MIL you wish. Hers is just an example of someone spending money on foolishness. The “legitimate service” a fortune-teller could offer is entertainment for those inclined. I mean, it sounds like a bore and a half to me, but I know the wife of one of my coworkers loves that stuff. She gets with her girlfriends and they do things like going to mediums. It sounds slightly more entertaining than church or a root canal, but only slightly. For your other point, I don’t think massages should be outlawed because some massages end in illegal activity. What things can lead to isn’t a very strong case for me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/88 "2009-08-18T17:33:36Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, movies that claim to be documentaries are different? > > What if it says it’s a documentary but is a passel of lies? How about “based on a true story”? How about the ones that claim to be based on a novel but have little or nothing in common with the novel (My Friend Flicka! ARGH!)? Are those fraud? > > I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway. > > People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats. > > I’ve never been inside a fortune teller establishment. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have signs up saying it’s all for entertainment. If you make a false claim about your prodict, it’s fraud. If you don’t, it’s not. Remember that guy who wrote the phony memoir about being a drug addict? His publisher had to refund the money that people had spent on the book after the meoir was exposed as fraudulent. Do you think that was wrong? Do you think publishers should be allowed to say whatever they want is non-fiction? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/89 "2009-08-18T17:47:14Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, movies that claim to be documentaries are different? What if it says it’s a documentary but is a passel of lies? How about “based on a true story”? How about the ones that claim to be based on a novel but have little or nothing in common with the novel (My Friend Flicka! ARGH!)? Are those fraud? > > I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway. > > People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats. > > I’ve never been inside a fortune teller establishment. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have signs up saying it’s all for entertainment. Part of determining if it’s fraud is determining whether there was an intent to decieve -and a reasonable expectation that a person wouldn’t fall for it. “Based on a true story” doesn’t imply that it’s going to be accurate - quite the opposite, actually. If anything, the first two Harry Potter movies defied expectations by _not_ slaughtering the source material. (The third, not so much.) Similarly, documentaries/mockumentaries pretty much either are not expected to be believed, or are believed by their creators. In either case, they’re not fraud. Remember - there’s more to fraud than just not being true. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/90 "2009-08-18T18:10:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Remember - there’s more to fraud than just not being true. That’s exactly my point. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/91 "2009-08-18T18:30:37Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > That’s exactly my point. Okay, you’re trying to argue that fortune telling isn’t fraud based on analogy. Why bother, when we can examine the issue based on what fraud acutally _is_? Fortune tellers are committing fraud if they can’t do it, don’t believe they really _can_ do it, are trying to fool people into thinking they can, believe that people will fall for it, and are ‘harming’ them based on it. It’s pretty ludicrous to say that movies do this. And, it’s pretty ludicrous to say that a kid who wraps a sheet around them at the school carnival does this. But is it ludicrous to say that somebody who opens up an _actual business_ fortune telling is doing this? In my opinion, the critical issues in specific cases is whether they believe they can do it, and whether the customers believe they can do it. If the answers are no and yes respectively, then they’re defrauding their customers. And if the customer is paying more than twenty dollars or so for the ‘service’, it’s a pretty safe bet they’re actually falling for it, so we could say that any soothsayer that setas prices like that almost certainly qualifies as a fraud on all points other thier the soothsayer’s own belief. Of course, this is kind of a side note to whether you can make a law banning soothsayers. In my opinion, you obviously can make such a law - whatever the rationale, it’s still a separate law from fraud. And businesses can indeed be regulated. So that’s that for that, I’d say. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/92 "2009-08-18T19:07:08Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You can belittle anything about my MIL you wish. Hers is just an example of someone spending money on foolishness. Actually, I feel very sorry for her and her family. The loss of large sums of money on foolish things says more about addiction, depression, estrangement, or loneliness on behalf of the victim than it does about their silliness or stupidity. While some would like to cast those who lose lots of money on gambling, lottery tickets, fortune tellers, televangelists, or whatever else nonsense is peddled, as being fools who deserve to lose their money, I view them more as people who either by compulsion or sadness needed to fill their lives with something that they could not get from the people around them. > [@](#): > > For your other point, I don’t think massages should be outlawed because some massages end in illegal activity. What things can lead to isn’t a very strong case for me. A massage is an actual service. Fortune telling for $20 is a lie. Fortune telling for a $1,000 session is a huge lie. Do you think that the places that offer palm readings do their business for only $20 at a time? I have one other question. In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, many cities closed down bath houses because of the concern that the sex that took place there helped spread the disease. I recall that a number of gay rights groups protested that their freedom of assembly was being violated. Do you think they gay rights advocates had a point? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/93 "2009-08-18T19:58:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Actually, I feel very sorry for her and her family. The loss of large sums of money on foolish things says more about addiction, depression, estrangement, or loneliness on behalf of the victim than it does about their silliness or stupidity. I don’t see why it can’t be both. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/94 "2009-08-18T20:52:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You mean, the ones where they accurately report the publisher’s classification of it as being nonfiction? > > Here are those five elements of fraud given earlier: > (1) a false statement of a material fact, > > - I grant this, despite your failure to prove that the specific book doesn’t work 😛 > > (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, > > - Can you show that the reviewer didn’t believe what they wrote to be accurate? > > (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, > > - Can you show that the reviewer was intending to decieve, rather than just reporting the author’s claims? Some of those editorial reviews read like they’re copied straight from promotional materials. > > (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and > > - granted (some people are, what’s the word? Oh yes, “chuckleheads”.) > > (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. > > - granted. (Small injury, the price of a book, but still it technically is one.) > > So yeah, given points 2 and 3 I think you’d have a tough road to hoe, particularly if you wanted to attach to the _big_ money pot of Amazon itself. (You can be quite certain that Amazon will tell you it had no intent to decieve, but was merely providing an impartial delivery system for books and reviews and the like.) But feel free to give it a shot if you like. Totally fair–these are exactly the arguments I’d propose must be advanced against the author of a book. Or, for that matter, against a street-level fortune-teller. I think you’d have a very hard time proving #2 and #3 for a lot of fortune-tellers. But not impossible: if, for example, you can show that they used trickery to gain information about clients, that’d go a very long way toward proving these two points. Since many fortune-tellers/prophets are sincere in their beliefs, I think you cannot ban them under a blanket fraud argument. Absent that argument, I think the first amendment ought to prevent banning them across the board. Prosecute individual fortunetellers for fraud with my blessing–but banning them is probably unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/95 "2009-08-18T21:03:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Totally fair–these are exactly the arguments I’d propose must be advanced against the author of a book. Or, for that matter, against a street-level fortune-teller. > > I think you’d have a very hard time proving #2 and #3 for a lot of fortune-tellers. But not impossible: if, for example, you can show that they used trickery to gain information about clients, that’d go a very long way toward proving these two points. > > Since many fortune-tellers/prophets are sincere in their beliefs, I think you cannot ban them under a blanket fraud argument. Absent that argument, I think the first amendment ought to prevent banning them across the board. Prosecute individual fortunetellers for fraud with my blessing–but banning them is probably unconstitutional. I agree that you can’t convict whole classes of people for fraud this way, with the possible exception of telephone spammers ;). However, I’m not convinced that constitutional protection extends to the right to make a buck. We regularly regulate businesses and force people to print various warnings and information and the like on products - this seems _exactly_ like a limitation on their speech to me. Given that we do _that_ without the constitution exploding into flames, I’m not sure we can’t do the same thing to any given slab of the prediction industry. Saying _all_ prediction for cash is illegal might be dubious just due to the fact that that wide of a brush can be used to paint any business that precalculates depreciation, but I can certainly see defining certain practices (tarot cards, palm reading, cold reading, throwing darts at stock listings) as being ‘not to code’ as prediction methodologies go, and banning their use by businesses. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/96 "2009-08-18T21:09:05Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I agree that you can’t convict whole classes of people for fraud this way, with the possible exception of telephone spammers ;). However, I’m not convinced that constitutional protection extends to the right to make a buck. We regularly regulate businesses and force people to print various warnings and information and the like on products - this seems _exactly_ like a limitation on their speech to me. Given that we do _that_ without the constitution exploding into flames, I’m not sure we can’t do the same thing to any given slab of the prediction industry. Saying _all_ prediction for cash is illegal might be dubious just due to the fact that that wide of a brush can be used to paint any business that precalculates depreciation, but I can certainly see defining certain practices (tarot cards, palm reading, cold reading, throwing darts at stock listings) as being ‘not to code’ as prediction methodologies go, and banning their use by businesses. I really don’t think so, given that so many forms have religious underpinnings. Do we want a world where someone can perform Bibliomancy to predict your future but not palm reading, where casting i Ching is okay but Tarot cards aren’t? How do we set up a fair test to distinguish between religious and non-religious fortune-telling? Rather, let’s set up a test between rationalist and nonrationalist claims. If someone claims they’ve invented a mathematical algorithm that can predict stocks successfully, they can be regulated. If they claim they can read stock predictions in their Tarot cards, have at it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/97 "2009-08-18T21:22:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I really don’t think so, given that so many forms have religious underpinnings. Do we want a world where someone can perform Bibliomancy to predict your future but not palm reading, where casting i Ching is okay but Tarot cards aren’t? How do we set up a fair test to distinguish between religious and non-religious fortune-telling? I’m going to have to back away from this one, becuase I don’t know the law for sure, and if I did I suspect I wouldn’t like it. (I think that an organization that takes money for a service is a business, period - I believe that any effort to call such a religion is _inherently_ a scam and should be denied that protection. So, in my ideal world, Bibliomancy, palm reading, casting I Ching, and Tarot would _all_ be illegal when done for money - and legal when done for free. And yes, I know that donations and “donations” would make this very messy.) > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Rather, let’s set up a test between rationalist and nonrationalist claims. If someone claims they’ve invented a mathematical algorithm that can predict stocks successfully, they can be regulated. If they claim they can read stock predictions in their Tarot cards, have at it. So: if the rational claim is found to work, it is permitted. If it is found _not_ to work, then it is banned - _except_ if they continue to claim that it works. Stating that something that doesn’t work works is what makes non-rationalist claims non-rational, after all. So, everything is permitted, if the person insists that it works. I’m not seeing that system as being all that useful. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/98 "2009-08-18T21:29:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I think that an organization that takes money for a service is a business, period - I believe that any effort to call such a religion is _inherently_ a scam and should be denied that protection. Again, what about the Catholic bookstore in my neighborhood? They sell Bibles, Catechisms, rosaries, medals of various kinds, and other things. They are a business, sure - but nobody would assume they gave up First Amendment protections by becoming one. If I were to ask the proprietors about the Rosary, they would be within their rights to discuss that with me - and nobody here would really dispute this. I have stated that I am skeptical of palmreading and the like - but I am even more skeptical of government deciding on what appears to be purely arbitrary (and unconstitutional) criteria what businesses can set up shop. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/99 "2009-08-18T21:42:31Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Again, what about the Catholic bookstore in my neighborhood? They sell Bibles, Catechisms, rosaries, medals of various kinds, and other things. > > They are a business, sure - but nobody would assume they gave up First Amendment protections by becoming one. If I were to ask the proprietors about the Rosary, they would be within their rights to discuss that with me - and nobody here would really dispute this. > > I have stated that I am skeptical of palmreading and the like - but I am even more skeptical of government deciding on what appears to be purely arbitrary (and unconstitutional) criteria what businesses can set up shop. I _strongly_ suspect that the catholic bookstore is set up as and viewed by the government as a business entity and not a religious edifice - though I suppose I could be wrong. Do they have to pay taxes on their building? Remember, just selling religious paraphenalia doesn’t make you a religion, and just being a business doesn’t prevent your salespeople from chatting (for free!) about rosaries or God or the stock market or the red socks with customers. Where things get dicey is when the things the business is _actually selling_ are not verifiably what the business is claiming they are - which I seriously doubt is the case regarding your bookstore. That bible is really a bible. That rosary is really a rosary. All good - if you’re into that sort of thing, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720/100 "2009-08-18T22:20:55Z")
So, here’s the final question. Is there any right to operate a business of a specific type in a city? Can a city ban pornography stores? If so, can they ban fortunetelling? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-montgomery-cty-md-does-not-have-the-right-to-ban-fortune-telling/506720.md?page=6)