How far can “public morality” go in making alternative lifestyles illegal?
As far as it wants, apparently. And what if the “public morality” is dominated by religious views rather than logical argument or empirical evidence? That seems to make no difference. Indeed, there is no “what if” about it: for a majority of people, many moral issues are in fact guided almost exclusively by religious views, with little or no concern for rational argumentation. It does not really matter whether or not anyone is actually harmed by someone’s behavior; all that matters is whether or not the God of the majority is thought to be offended by it. This seems to be a perfect set-up for encouraging religious warfare – exactly the sort of thing that was supposed to be discouraged by the separation of church and state. If one religion (or a coalition religions with similar moral preferences) can make activities associated with certain other religions (or agnostics and atheists) illegal just because it offends their religiously-based moral principles, then it becomes a high priority
