[Blackfish1]

I think that’s the point; the law is so broad and general it could be used to defend anything at all. Freedom of religion is already protected.

[celmak]

"I think that’s the point; the law is so broad and general it could be used to defend anything at all. Freedom of religion is already protected.

No, 1062 narrowed the definition - read the original version.

[celmak]

"Freedom of religion is already protected."

Then why do you think there was this effort to pass 1062 in the first place. Do you actually think that religious freedoms have not been erroded over the past few years?

In fact, the case the left made against 1062 is that it was discriminatory against homosexuals when NO MENTION of homosexuallity was in 1062. If the case of the left is valid, it is valid to think that ANYTHING religious - or any religion for that matter - is discriminatory, and thus should be illegal!