The US 1st Amendment and Baby-Eating

[Purple Knight]

Does the First Amendment allow baby-eating? Because I don't see a clause that it allows religious freedom as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else or break any other laws. I see a blanket statement about the government leaving the religious alone to do entirely whatever they like. If the law prohibits freedom of religion, they can't make it. On the other hand, the bit that outlines the right to freedom of assembly does indicate it has to be peaceful. I see nothing like that in the bit about freedom of religion.

[Purple Knight]

That defeats the point of any and all constitutional protections of rights.

It seems to me this rather hasty conclusion is predicated on the assumption that rights are absolute.

Or at least, that when protecting rights, those rights should be treated as absolute, or there's no point to the protection.

It might work well in practice to simply find reasonable accommodation, but only as long as your leadership is unbiased and interested in being fair. The point of having rights protected in law seems to be for the case that the leadership will be unfair and biased if it can be. For example, take the baby-eating example. Even when the government has a compelling interest, they can choose the First Amendment instead. So it's just on their choice. We might as well have a dictator.

[bjs1]

[Purple Knight]

[bjs1]

[Purple Knight]

[bjs1]

[Purple Knight]