Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
The supreme court verdicts you like to allude to extend non-religion equal protection to religion under the first amendment.
Nope. But thanks for playing. Here's a can of turtle wax as your consolation prize.
Quote:
You'd know this if you actually bothered to learn them instead of browsing for support for your conclusions. There is this thing called "equality" that the supreme court tends to take very seriously when interpreting law. Go figure.
Oh. You shouldn't have said that. Just hang your head in shame. This thing called "equality" is only structured under pre-defined classes. And "religious/non-religious" is not one of those pre-defined classes. Otherwise, one might argue that "equality" meant that adults and children were identical under the law, which simply isn't true. Why do you think it's such a big deal that people are trying to add sexual orientation as a special protected class? If bland "equality" was already written into the law, there would be no need for special protected classes.
And have you not noticed the conversations going on in this thread about the asymmetry of religious argumentation and secular argumentation? You know, the contraception thing where I've been arguing (and nobody has really been disagreeing) that religion is favored in such an argument, and that it's far from clear that a secular argument against contraception would be successful in the exact same way that a religious one is?
I'm taking back your turtle wax. You didn't even earn that.
Quote:
But I guess it is easier to just ignore such things and accuse other of misunderstanding, ignorance and not using their brains properly. If there is one thing this thread has established with full certainty, it is that law is not a good subject for you.
When the other person is wrong and ignorantly wrong, their accusations don't really carry any weight. I'll make it simple for you. Cite the case law and then provide your analysis.
Until then, I'll just laugh to myself about how embarrassingly bad your argumentation is. I'll remind you that you're the one who made the jump in this thread from "atheism is not a religion" in back-to-back posts (#80-#81) which is explicitly a denial of case law. So I have plenty of reason to be confident that I understand the law better than you do.