Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Because it's a good analogy.
The analogy is irrelevant. It is used to allow government intrusion into rights of free association, into ownership of personal property, of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, as well as a major incursion into the whole constitutional process. Please see my post above this for clarification. Extra Government control is not necessary here if constitutional system is followed.
And many religions are certainly looked at as being racist, even if it's not clearly spelled out. Hell, even Jesus never clearly called out gays.
Again, irrelevant to the constitutional order. Extra government intervention and control in this matter causes less freedom and actually less equality before the law.
If you can interpret anything how you'd like and demonstrate it's a deeply held conviction...what's stopping someone?
-spence
|
Stopping "someone" from doing what? The Constitution, if followed, stops someone from denying its guarantees.
And if you object to interpreting anything how you'd like and demonstrate your deeply held conviction that your interpretation is correct, how do you not object to progressive jurisprudence which does exactly that.