You either dodged my point

think of this. It's illegal in new york to bathe with a duck (really)

Or just arguing to argue

the state of new york made it illegal there to bathe with a duck

you said that you think ohio should decide whether or not it wants to respect the constitution

Call me Ix

😎

supreme court says nah

I say nah

they can do that because there is no overlap with federal law

same as with pot a while back. Legal at the state level, illegal at the federal level and the federal level always wins

Stoping a mosque from playing prayers throughout town is not unconstitutional

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But that's besides the point

Hey, Tim is online. First time I have seen when he isn't idle

It was just an example

Seems to be a law respecting an establishment of religion, specifically prohibiting its free expression thereof.

But just because something is illegal at the Federal level doesn't mean that law is going to be enforced.

and actually, also abridging the freedom of speech

@Malt_Hitman they can though

What are we arguing about? I'm sure I'll have extremely aggressive views on it and I'll use those views to bash on this communist @Gilgamesh

Yes, they could.

Well I guess I believe in human sacrifice as my religion

Government cant stop me

@DrWittMDPhD don't ask me. It's something to do with scotus

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...