[thatjamesdude]

> Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things.

Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence.

Don't care for the rest of the comment because I've come to believe those that can't wrap their heads around the difference between civil and criminal law are not worth talking to about either.

Some might say there's irony in the religious component being mentioned, but I say it is natural. Not many incentives to think critically or against the grain in religion, not surprising it is rare amongst its proponents then.

[Veen]

> Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence

This is becoming rather a tedious thought-terminating cliché in some circles. They rarely specify who should determine the consequences and which consequences are acceptable, which is usually exactly what's being discussed.

As in this case, where the discussion is whether losing one's job is an acceptable consequence when your beliefs lead you to action, inaction, or speech someone in power doesn't like.

[elzbardico]

Indeed, this was a very common argument by the regime apologists in South American military dictatorships.

[_v7gu]

>Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence

Ah yes, Godwin's law for the 2020's. So we can fire people for spouting commie propaganda (ie promoting unions) now?

[elzbardico]

Why not send them to Gulags. We just need them to know beforehand that some kind of speech have this unfortunate consequence.

[_8j50]

I agree about consequence. Both for speech and religion however, you are protected from and you are free from consequence by the government!