LogFAQs > #878442653

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Except that forcing somebody to act against their religion is something very explicitly prohibited in the First Amendment (which is the real separation of Church and state, and one impetus for America's earliest settlers to come here). Those laws very literally go against the original document and, more importantly, most religions have a similar view against acknowledging gay weddings. And the fact that somebody could get in trouble for saying Christmas in the first place is a very specific First Amendment violation since it was government blocking their speech in that instance (whereas a private employer would be fine). And the fact that you think these are egregious "going nuts" examples just underscores the hilarious stupidity of your claims. Getting rid of the Johnston Bill would literally do nothing. You think that it would create some caliphate for some bizarre reason, but there's zero grounds to the belief first in terms of the scope (since it's just an ENDORSEMENT) and secondly because back before Johnson's speech suppression bill was a thing those issues never existed anyway. It was always nothing less than a cheap political tactic, a leftist jellybean test designed to block free speech ONLY from religious groups -- very specifically targeting Christians -- while still giving it to other non-profits who, in many cases, had ACTUAL benefit from their access to speech because they got government funding.

Apparently Johnson was Christian too. So he was targeting his own kind?

Not sure why you feel that this is an actual argument or, for that matter, where you're trying to go with it.

@Revelation34
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash