What's that supposed to mean? Are you implying that "bikers" lack the right to peacefully assemble without government interference simply because they are not specifically addressed in the First Amendment?
I hope not, because that would be just as ridiculous as someone arguing that "Christians" lack the right to religious freedom simply because "Christianity" is not specifically addressed in the First Amendment.
Don't worry, though, by reading between the lines I have obtained the answer to my original question.
You even appear to recognize the hypocrisy of supporting restrictions on the rights of some groups while espousing unfettered freedom for groups with whom you agree. You also appear to be uncomfortable facing that hypocrisy, so you resort to accusing people of making "straw man" arguments and to making lame statements like "The First Amendment does not address bikers".
It's too bad, too, because I support your basic premise regarding the 1st Amendment -- we appear to differ in that I think ALL of those freedoms (not just religious ones) should be protected for everyone, and you seem to care only about the religious rights of Christians.
>>...and you seem to care only about the religious rights of Christians. “
I hope you didn’t break your leg jumping to that conclusion.
The issue is WAY larger than merely “the religious rights of Christians.”
It is about the government’s overreach, to supercede the Constitution, curtail the liberties the Founding Fathers sought to preserve, and having idiots on Free Republic cheer on tyranny while jeering at liberty.