Piss off. I didn't lie. Learn to read and comprehend before using that word.
Nice strawman again....
You can have all the free speech you want. You can speak out against anything you want to condemn. But guess what - SO CAN I. You seem to have that typical liberal philosophy, that free speech is a one way street: "I can say whatever I want, and when you use your free speech rights to speak out against my words, your violating MY free speech rights". Sorry; doesn't work that way, Sparky....
Now, read this slowly, so maybe you'll pick it up this time: What I am saying is that it is a short, slippery slope between censoring, or boycotting, or otherwise limiting access to opposing religious viewpoints (even if they are FICTIONAL!!!), and executing people because they hold different religious views. And if you don't understand THAT, I guess you need to go back and bone up on your Constitutional concepts.
My point is that the ROP (that's Islam, you know) feels exactly the same way: if you stray from that religion, they feel that it's better to kill you than to let you go.
He doesn't feel "exactly the same way", and instead of producing anything to show he does, you admitted to making it up. That's all there is to it.
You can have all the free speech you want. You can speak out against anything you want to condemn. But guess what - SO CAN I.
I know you won't believe it, but others in turn have the right to answer you back. Yes, I know that's the same as cutting your head off (except for the dying part), but it really is part of free speech.
"I can say whatever I want, and when you use your free speech rights to speak out against my words, your violating MY free speech rights".
The only one here thinking that way is you. You equate his disagreement with censorship and start hollering about killing people. So tell me, how does it work? A one-way street that runs the other way?