How long will we allow this to persist?

So in other words, probably a long time.

Christians and other people of faith are persecuted when we post things that are critical about religion

So what do you infer from this?

What do you infer?

That they followed the law and interpreted the Constitution. We may disagree with the law as it is written, we may criticize the intent of those who wrote the law, but a unanimous decision suggests agreement as to how the law must be interpreted.

the law is an ass.

But with sufficient and consistent turnout, change is possible.

we would just need the SCOTUS to say that Gay people are covered under the Constitution.
They did so with Gay marriage.
They also said corporations can have religion, so who knows?
Of course with Trump appointing judges, it will be a generation before the SCOTUS upholds people's rights again.

This lower court judge just told us what is critical to the mission of a church.

But isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state?

US judges shouldn't be telling us what a good church should be like.

Or telling us that religion is exempt from laws that apply to everybody else.

interprets the Law. And the Law is not unchanging, but if the law is written in such a way that there is an 8-0 decision, it suggests that this is not seen by the SCOTUS as a liberal vs conservative issue.

Unless you subscribe to the idea (that was very popular in the 1960s) that President Kennedy, and by extension Catholics, would have allegiance to the Pope over the country. That was quite a popular right wing talking point.

Or defines it, should believers ever be smug? It might just as well be defined somewhat differently, next

or defines it, should citizens ever be smug?

No matter what I believe, or how I feel about the SCOTUS decision, the fact that it was unanimous shows something.

Which does not pretend to be absolutely authoritative or "eternal." But which frankly admits it is merely human. And therefore, fallible. And changeable.

One if the advantages of some kinds of humanism: modesty, and flexibility.

So what that 1964 Title VII decision or Equal Opportunity, non-discrimination law affirmed, was that in 1964, no one was willing to firmly take religion on. Not very directly. Not for now.

But it did soon establish that the courts could stipulate what religion was real, or acceptible. And what was not.

And soon, more than 50 years later? What is regarded as acceptable, could change.

Religious headhunting and cannibalism, and Muslim terrorism, are already stipulated not to be acceptable religion.

And next?

Thus my comment: "Religious bigotry and religious privilege prevail."

What do YOU infer from it being a unanimous decision?

There are lots of bigoted religious people in power.

Thanks for agreeing.

Thank you for the validation.

It was or wasn't, not a matter of belief.

Do you support religious groups discriminating like this?

"Do you support religious groups discriminating like this?"

"6. The obvious answer.

That they followed the law and interpreted the Constitution. We may disagree with the law as it is written, we may criticize the intent of those who wrote the law, but a unanimous decision suggests agreement as to how the law must be interpret"

Your answer is a non-sequitor, the question is unanswered.

(This seems somehow familiar)