Trite argument. Murder and theft are crimes against the rights of a specific individual, THAT is why they are codified. Athiest and saved both agree that they dont want to be murdered or be the victim of theft.
But this guy wants women to dress in a way that satisfies his religion. Her wearing a short skirt “doesn’t pick a pocket, nor break a bone”.
Thats why he shouldn’t expect to get a LAW. Maybe i dont like to see a man in a dress,, should there be a law that he can’t walk around in womens clothes? My preacher wears pants, like a man. See the problem?
“Athiest and saved both agree that they dont want to be murdered or be the victim of theft.”
I disagree.
There are many atheists and others, some may actually claim to be saved, who actually kill and steal, so, there are truly plenty of people who would not mind if murder and/or theft were legal or unpunished.
I don’t think I have a trite argument. My argument is: you can’t arbitrarily decide what religious beliefs can be codified into law, and what can’t.
Because your arbitrary decision are different than mine are different from Ted Bundy are different from the imam are different from Charles Manson are different from my grandma.
I could certainly support a law against cross dressing. I am sure a good majority if not a plurality of Americans would support it. Is it majority rule? Or, if not, what then is our standard?