• TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You are ignoring his point… The whole point of separating Church and state is to both protect the government from the influence of the church, but also to prevent the government from controlling your freedom of expression.

    People are allowed to express their religious beliefs so long as it does not inhibit others from expressing their own beliefs.

    You don’t have to be religious to understand the consequences of giving the government the ability to police self expression. If we made rulings that handed power over expression to the government, you honestly think conservatives wouldn’t utilize that when they eventually came to power?

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      you last argument idls that of a slippery slope which is almost exclusively a fallacy.

      as for your first, keyword is, inhibit, do you categorize feeling uncomfortable as inhibiting someone’s rights for example?

      let’s say I am a lone satanist, working at a government building, I am fetting judgy looks all day by Christian coworkers wearing crosses and it drives me away from the job, isn’t thst inhibiting me?

      let’s say I am a public facing worker, couldn’t me displaying my satanist symbols be inhibiting the public looking for whatever government service?

      isn’t it easier and better for everybody involved to leave that shit at home and keep the workplace free from all that?

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        you last argument idls that of a slippery slope which is almost exclusively a fallacy.

        Ahh yes, legal precedent. Famously always fallacious… Also, the slippery slope fallacy requires a series of actions leading to a negative consequence. This is just a direct consequence of a single action.

        You are attempting to establish a law that is preventing people from expressing their legally protected beliefs. You don’t think setting that precedent isn’t going to have consequences?

        you categorize feeling uncomfortable as inhibiting someone’s rights for example? let’s say I am a lone satanist, working at a government building, I am fetting judgy looks all day by Christian coworkers wearing crosses and it drives me away from the job, isn’t thst inhibiting me?

        Lol, where in the legal system does it claim that you have the right to be comfortable at all times?

        let’s say I am a public facing worker, couldn’t me displaying my satanist symbols be inhibiting the public looking for whatever government service?

        You have every right to display satanic symbology. How does this prevent members of the public from looking for a government service. Plus, logically if you are the government worker, they already have found the government service…

        Let’s change the scenario slightly. Let’s suppose you are a person of color working for the government, and a member of the public is wanting service, but is racist. Is hiring a person of color inhibiting his rights? Of course not.