I'm ignoring points 1 through 6 because I want to look at point 7 specifically because I think it's something worth discussing (especially with the semi-recent Karen Pence matter) when talking about separation of Church and State.
Pence? Ahh. Private religious school vs public school.
Religious, private schools have a right to set their standards. The public is not paying for that school. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
Let's say there's a kid looking to go to school. They're transgender. The area they live in have a really, really shitty school with barely any resources and horrible teachers, and a really, really good school with a lot of funding and the best teachers. The latter, though, is very Christian and doesn't allow transgender students in. Leaving the area is just financially not an option for the family or the kid.
If they can't move, how can they pay the tuition at the private school?
Should the school's right to religion trump the kid's right to a good education and by extension, equal opportunity?
That's tricky. The US Constitution does not list education as a fundamental right while Freedom of Religion is the very first one. Unfortunately for the kid, you can not force a private and religious school to admit someone who violates core tenants of their beliefs.
When it comes to freedom of religion especially, we're moving into the territory of questioning which rights are more important than others. Personally, I don't think Christian, Muslim or schools of any religion should be allowed to discriminate based on sex, gender identification, disability, race, etc. because I believe the right to equal opportunity (note: opportunity, not outcome) is more valuable to society than the right to religious exclusion.
How do you prevent people from flooding the "better" schools with their kids and basically overwhelming and destroying that school?
LDS Man, you outlined the problem yourself. There are two sides to every issue, and you only see one of them. To someone like me, the bakery refusing to serve a gay couple was no different than had they refused to serve a black or Jewish couple.
First, I do see both sides. It be great if everybody had zero problem with everybody else. Forcing someone to do something they disagree with is slavery. Slavery is bad. And the bakery regularly served that couple. They could buy any premade cake or baked good they wanted or even order other goods. The line the bakery had was to make a wedding cake celebrating the gay couple's upcoming wedding. The bakery was not willing to do that as celebrating said wedding was against their religious beliefs.
To illustrate what I'm saying, put yourself in the customer's shoes. You and your fiancee, who you love enough to spend the rest of your life with, are planning your wedding. What would your reaction be to a merchant refusing to serve you on the grounds that he objects to you marrying? What COULD your reaction be?
I'm a reasonable person. If I liked that person and really liked that bakery, then I'd be disappointed but I'd find someone else to make the cake. If their response really pissed me off, I'd likely cuss them out and along with never coming back, I'd badmouth them to potential customers.
Then when the pot gets stirred and loudmouthed politicians go public, condemning your marriage as a sinful "abomination" no better than bestiality, you're not exactly going to appreciate it.
I'm sure the baker at al, appreciated be accused of being a hate filled bigot and dragged through court.
You know, I used to be a church-goer. I believe in God, and I believe Jesus (or at least someone like the man described in the Bible) did exist. But if He was anything like the peace-loving, tolerant, generous pacifist the
Jesus wasn't a pacifist. He was a peaceful person. Bit of a difference. Used a whip on money lenders, advocated buying a sword. anyway. Different topic.
Freedom of Speech is okay up until the point you use it to hurt, condemn, or belittle someone else. That is NOT the message Jesus gave.
Free speech with limits isn't free speech.
