it seems like, from the perspective of the constitution, a law literally respecting an establishment of Islamic religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

you get what I'm saying

But again its besides the point

now, if there's some non-speech, non-expression content of that law

like a disturbance of the peace

@Cody think about what I said about new york though. That the state passed a law making it illegal to bathe with a duck (real law). They were allowed to do that because it didn't trample the constitution or try to supercede federal law

a form of violence

maybe there are civil suits for amplified playing of the call to prayer

Deep down, I think this is some type of secret code debating the gayness of traps.

Loud broadcasting of muzzie throat chanting is a disturbance of the epace

@Malt_Hitman oh no

I'm saying that becuase the SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional, it is now illegal for everyone

all 3 branches enforce that law to make it illegal to do so

My feelings are that Codes is clearly on the 'not gay' side of the issue.

@DrWittMDPhD go home, you're drunk

but as for preventing the expression, especially of a particular religion...

Alcohol is degenerate

I think you'd have a hard time arguing the constitutionality of that

@DrWittMDPhD 😂

you could find some room in restricting the specific way in which it is expressed

what was going on here? just joined and i have no idea whats currently going on

because it has some non-speech effect

non-expressive effect

there are workarounds though like noise ordanances

Man your worse than my friend

etc.

worse in what way

@Pyro reminds me of when Donnie is asking what s going on in Big Lebowski

you can't tell them to not broadcast a prayer, you CAN say that it cannot disturb the peace. There are workarounds plenty

You have dodged my entire example

never saw the big lebowski

God dammit Donnie

It's good

i might watch it at some point

I read your example in full, and gave a detailed explanation of the court's position on it, the constitution's position on it, and the possible ways to make the argument which the supreme court would be able to defend.

Whether it is unconstitutional or not is irrelevant, the scotus decided that it was

9 people who are unelected

These fucking fascists wanna chop off my johnson

nine people appointed periodically by elected officials

unelected is better...

yeah, elections for supreme court judges would be...