[exporectomy]

> things which you cannot choose (except religion), is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion du jour

It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?

It isn't even about prejudice which will already be illegal for discrimination in hiring, etc. It's simply about saying things which might make other people feel "bad" feelings. Pretty similar to offending a religious person by saying their God is wrong. That stirs up hate too and it deeply hurts people.

[tweetle_beetle]

> It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?

Yes and I think I already explained how I believe that to be the case.

But to expand it to your example, how does an attempt to improve prejudiced actions against all people of faith, sexual orientation, etc. support a state institution? What is the ulterior motive and which power structure is benefitting from it? From what I can see - none. It's just a change in society's morality.