I’m not sure its as narrow as some are saying. I haven’t read the whole thing and it appears that the court ruled that free exercise of religion included religious activity. The left has argued for years that “free exercise” is just freedom of belief or freedom of worship, essentially freedom of religious speech. This goes beyond that.
“The left has argued for years that “free exercise” is just freedom of belief or freedom of worship, essentially freedom of religious speech. This goes beyond that.”
The 1st amendment specifically mentioned religion because of this type of ruling. Speech is one thing, religious practice is another. The left wants them to only be the same thing, while also denying freedom of speech for religious purposes.
I’m not sure its as narrow as some are saying. I haven’t read the whole thing and it appears that the court ruled that free exercise of religion included religious activity. The left has argued for years that “free exercise” is just freedom of belief or freedom of worship, essentially freedom of religious speech. This goes beyond that.
The LEFT so wants to limit freedom of religion to freedom of worship. We are free to worship, however, we must shed our religion when we are outside the church.
On the same note, the official STATE religion is atheism. The LEFT pretends that atheism is neutral. There is no neutral. God and no God. They are opposites. In numbers, they are 1 and -1. Atheism is not zero. It is -1.
When a STATE employee(Principal) tells a student he cannot invoke God in his speech, he is enforcing the STATE religion of atheism. He is violating the citizen’s freedom of religion.
[[This goes beyond that.]]
What do you mean? Do you think the SC ruled that people should not be compelled to violate their moral conscience when it comes to opposition of immoral behaviors in this ruling? (Which is something i had hoped would be the result of the ruling)