Geoffrey MillerVerified account

'Religious liberty' includes the freedom of communities to impose their own moral judgments & social norms. 'Equal protection under the law' means everyone must be immune to those judgments & norms. There is no credible way to reconcile these conflicting principles. Never was.

Incorrect on the first statement. Religious liberty includes the freedom of INDIVIDUALS to impose their own moral judgments and social norms upon their own brain.

That interpretation would basically outlaw organized religious communities that have any moral cohesion or social norms. In other words, it would prohibit the free exercise of religion, which is a _social institution_, among other things.

No, it recognizes the Constitution was intended to protect individuals from government tyranny. The community standards individuals voluntarily subscribe to are not relevant to the purpose of the First Amendment. The freedoms to peaceably assemble and associate allow for that.

Equal protection under the law has to do with government regulations and laws, not community group norms and mores. The Scalia decision in Employment Division v. Smith should have been legislated as law. Instead, Congress undermined it.

Equal protection implies male genital mutation should be just as illegal as female genital mutilation. Some religions mandate circumcision. How do you square that circle?

I would say that we should give all individuals constitutional rights, including babies and maybe even fetuses (not trying to start a fire here). If babies' constitutional rights were respected, then any genital mutilation regardless of religion or sex would be unconstitutional.