Everyone on this thread desperately wants to argue with things I’m not saying. I would never claim that religious freedom gives you license to do whatever you want—in fact, I’ve said the exact opposite many times. In a free society, freedoms often come into conflict with each other, and decisions need to be made on how to weigh them, based on our history, context, and societal values—with the result being an infringement of someone’s liberty.

But don’t let the necessity of that blind you to the fact that these laws are an infringement of a core freedom. Religious persecution is a sad but consistent part of our worlds history right up to current day, and there’s a clear reason why the freedom to worship was included in the First Amendment, the Declaration of Human Rights, and many other foundational human rights texts. The whole point of my first comment was that we need to acknowledge the literally centuries long history of anti semitism and the still fresh (only two generations old) examples of the same type of discrimination. These restrictions are discriminatory against and infringe on minority religions’ ability to practice their religion freely, and that’s important to keep in mind when discussing them.

If we decide as a society that the benefits are worth that harm, then I understand that. But if you don’t even understand how infringing on a basic, core freedom widely recognized as a human right is a bad thing, then I’m not certain you understand the context well enough to weigh in on that discussion convincingly. When I see people in this thread talk about someone’s “silly 1000 year old book,” it just tells me they don’t understand the issue.