Continuing to infer that this was based on a reporter and a religious belief makes you it look like that's what the calls for repeal were about. They weren't.The demonstrations suggested something else. The entire presumption of the demonstrations was that because a reporter decided that perhaps there might be people who might exploit this law because of their religious beliefs would compel them to do so was outrageous. That was the cause of the demonstrations. There was no act other than speech that caused it. And speech, as I am forced to reiterate in this instance, is protected. As I said before, this is all hysterical hyperbole, and rather than offerring substance, you continue the hyperbole.
25 posts in this thread alone. Something tells me you do care.You're assuming I care one way or the other. I don't.
Still under the belief that this was all started because of a reporter? Hmm. It really wasn't.BS. The entire exercise, from the moment that reported decided this was a good thing to do until it's completion, was precisely about condemning someone for spoken thought. You can condemn if you like, but that person still retains the right to say it, whether you like it or not.