That's not at all what freedom from religion means. Freedom from religion means others cannot impose their religious beliefs on you. Something the Pro Life people fail to understand among others.
As the mod of said hellhole, I'd say your contributions are welcome if you wish. It's not particularly hellish since the most active poster, a Russian conspiracy theorist, departed.
There's no such thing as freedom from religion. The US Constitution has the free exercise and establishment clauses. It doesn't have a "gag other people whose beliefs you disagree with clause".
Yeah, I'm not sure where these penumbra and emanations are coming from. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses are pretty particular in their wording and application. (Note that "free exercise" necessarily includes "no exercise" as an option, obviously).
Indochine Cafe. Hamilton Road. Service can be lacking, but it's wonderful! Best Pho and Bahn Mi in the city. Not Vietnamese, but their Pad See Ew is my favorite menu item, and strangely their off the menu pork chop is cheap af and out of this world. Pro tip, put the salad dressing on the choo sand the rice! If you go, tell Ba and Amp I said, "hi".
Except no one is trying to gag anyone else. Hinkle is free to worship, believe and say whatever she wants. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else around her has to tolerate bigotry. If your religious beliefs make you an asshole, people aren’t going to like you.
You are strangely applying the clause in one direction but not the other. As Timon notes, the freedom to not exercise is equal. I (and Kyle) are not implying a gag as you keep trying to paint it. It means, you can't force someone to practice as you do and laws cannot be passed that force that on others. Which is why all these abortion bans violate that same constitutional provision and will inevitably fail once challenged in the courts.
Claiming there is such a thing as freedom from religion implies you have a right to make the street corner preacher shut up. You don't. Regarding abortion or homosexuality, people of any religion or no religion at all can be found on either side of the debate so it's not really religious. Hinkle may cite the bible, a Muslim might cite the Quran, or an atheist could claim "the natural order" in opposing being used as a billboard for a cause they don't support.
So you're opposed to ENDA and the "Equality Act" or does your support for diversity of opinion only run in 1 direction?
No it doesn't. And no I don't. I'm not going to keep going in circles here, as we're getting off the rails and into discussions that should be moved into the politics page. I will simply state again, that it means, one cannot be forced to practice any specific religion, nor any at all. None is an option protected by the same establishment clause. Ask a constitutional lawyer.
Where the hell is anyone getting "gags", speaking of penumbras? Also, while we're on the strange ancillary subject of "tolerance" and lack thereof, it certainly is not prohibited to not tolerate someone who dislikes an aspect or behavior, but it sure is hypocritical if one keeps invoking the "t" word.
See, you and Bill have both tried to make this bullshit argument in this thread. The idea that standing up to discrimination is just as bad, because it’s a form of discrimination in itself. Don’t insult my intelligence or your own. “If you truly were a tolerant person, you would be tolerant enough to tolerate someone else’s intolerance.” Save it.
Certainly nobody can be forced to practice a particular religion or any at all. Anyone who passed high school civics should know that. I'm more interested in your claim that the various recent abortion bans run afoul of the establishment clause and will be struck down based on it. They'll likely be blocked by lower courts but based on privacy reasons. Roe (or really a case called Webster) are the current word from SCOTUS on abortion. They were decided based on non-interference by the state in the doctor-patient relationship. Nothing to do with religion.
But the word "discrimination" is just a label people apply to things they don't like. Sort of like the "hate" label from the SPLC. It doesn't explain why you hold the view you do. If it's as simple as you love your sister, fine. But that's hardly a principle for other people to act on.
Soy milk is as disgusting as your trolls are lame. Jack Sticker, you are the Justin Meram of this forum, just not the same after your time away.
Stop insulting Justin Meram. We get it that by the end of his time with Crew that you were done with him. But come on. A bridge too far with this analogy to jack. Edit: I like soy milk.