The OP point is still clear. If the law says "You must do x unless you have a religious exemption" then why should anyone at all be expected to do x if clearly it isn't important enough to enforce on all people.

If your religion includes killing people, it is still illegal regardless of your religion. So it seems reasonable that any law which can be overridden by a religious exemption should be dropped for all people.

There are established laws that take all it that into account. But new law should be crafted with people's legitimate beliefs in mind. You mention murder but how about something more controversial like a Christian baker being forced to make cakes for gay weddings? How is that not analogous to compelled speech and regulated religion? It is one thing for the government to restrict gay weddings, it is another to enforce people support it despite their beliefs.

Of course, in the eyes of western law, religion does not supersede the rule of law. But at the same time, legislation or judicial enforcement done in ignorance of the people's religions (or lack thereof) is in effect regulating their faith. Just citizens can't claim ignorance when they disobey the law, the gov shouldn't claim ignorance of people's beliefs either.

The only time it makes sense to infringe on religious freedom is when preventing infringement of others' liberty. Point being, murder violated someone's liberty while a baker refusing business violated a right (not liberty since other bakers are willing to serve the couple). I would draw the line by saying concerting to restrict others rights would violate liberties.

>something more controversial like a Christian baker being forced to make cakes for gay weddings?

I don't think this changes anything really. If religious people can use their religion as a valid reason for discrimination, why shouldn't everyone be able to discriminate?

To me, I think everyone should have exactly the same legal rights. Either everyone has to bake the cake or no one does.

The problem is the definition of "discrimination". Everyone _is_ able to discriminate all the time. I'm free to discriminate between cookie flavors I buy, or discriminate between genders of people I date. What the law forbids is not _serving_ people because of the color of their skin or their sexual preferences.

And that is also not the case of Jack Phillips. He didn't refuse to serve gay people, and IIRC the accusers on the case were regular clients.

He refused to _design_ a custom cake for a gay wedding, which is akin to a Jewish t-shirt designer refusing to design a logo involving a Swastika, or a black transgender baker refusing to bake a cake that says "white lives matter" or "sex is immutable".

This seems much more related to compelled speech than sexual discrimination.

>which is akin to a Jewish t-shirt designer refusing to design a logo involving a Swastika, or a black transgender baker refusing to bake a cake that says "white lives matter" or "sex is immutable" These are really not equivalent at all. Not even remotely.

As an atheist that's one thing I like about religion: preserving religious freedoms helps preserve the freedom of all people.

That said it's not a pure good. Religions can push for oppressive laws that match their beliefs.

and let's not forget that not having a religion is a religious freedom.

As an atheist I would expect you to understand "good" in your opinion might be "bad" in others'. For example, I think some forms of oppression are good. Like by all means opress jihadism,death cults and hardline communism.

Also, secular laws are seen as opressive to religious people.being forced to make a secular sign feels as opressive as being forced to pray at school. Both are a majority population implementing shared belief

I think it’s pretty clear by now that anything that can be excused with a religious exemption probably isn’t critical enough to be a legal requirement for the rest of the population.

Such as income taxes. I’m not against religious organizations not paying income tax but I do think they should pay property tax beyond the acreage required for the church/temple/mosque building, a garage and a parking lot. Allowances could be made if they run a pantry or a school for additional tax free land but no more of this having a church own dozens to hundreds of acres and buildings that they have little to no incentive to use for anything once purchased. Since they don’t pay property or income taxes, inflation does not hit them as hard but since they are competing for the same properties in the market they have an unfair advantage.

> Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things.

Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence.

Don't care for the rest of the comment because I've come to believe those that can't wrap their heads around the difference between civil and criminal law are not worth talking to about either.

Some might say there's irony in the religious component being mentioned, but I say it is natural. Not many incentives to think critically or against the grain in religion, not surprising it is rare amongst its proponents then.

> Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence

This is becoming rather a tedious thought-terminating cliché in some circles. They rarely specify who should determine the consequences and which consequences are acceptable, which is usually exactly what's being discussed.

As in this case, where the discussion is whether losing one's job is an acceptable consequence when your beliefs lead you to action, inaction, or speech someone in power doesn't like.

Indeed, this was a very common argument by the regime apologists in South American military dictatorships.

>Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence

Ah yes, Godwin's law for the 2020's. So we can fire people for spouting commie propaganda (ie promoting unions) now?

Why not send them to Gulags. We just need them to know beforehand that some kind of speech have this unfortunate consequence.

I agree about consequence. Both for speech and religion however, you are protected from and you are free from consequence by the government!

I didn't tell people they can have a religion but they can't practice it. And I never said freedom of religious belief was not a fundamental right. And I don't dislike religion. And what do you know of my "irreligious practices"?

Your whole post is just a big, oafish strawman. I might be insulted if it weren't so bad that it's actually making me laugh.

> most of the other important rights modern societies enjoy became a thing in a very religious time and religious reasoning was used

Which times? And what religious reasoning?

Personally, it makes me think of "Les Lumières", and I fail to see any religious reasoning in Voltaire or Rousseau.

So, being pretty sure we aren’t thinking of the same times and people, I’m curious.