Intermix at 6000 degrees and rising

[mikailborg]

I want to rant about the idiots who claim that "freedom of religion" gives them the right to harass people they don't like, but I am controlling myself.

With great difficulty.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It is probably too late to jump in here, but we need to separate freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

If FoS already grants it then the suit is void to begin with. You don't have to sue under FoR to be allowed to watch cable tv - you already have it (for example).

[vileone.livejournal.com]

Both are first-ammendment provisions; I don't know why you would need to separate one from the other. Do you have to separate freedom of speech from freedom of assembly when the two overlap? Why in particular would the suit be void given that her speech is being restricted (provided the court rules that it is being restricted) and that speaking out is a part of her religion?

A key question here is whether freedom of religion includes freedom to act upon your religion. This has always been a fuzzy line. Do Jews have the right to perform animal sacrifices in violation of zoning? Do Rastafarians and certain Native American tribes have the right to restricted drugs? And who gets to decide what's a religion?

But in any case, I don't understand your point about the case being void. When you say "you already have [the right]," isn't that exactly what you would sue about? The fact that you're being prevented from exercising your right? What else would a lawsuit be about?