Enough with the non-sequiturs: And more importantly: what does any of that have to do with our example scenario of Mr. N. Tolerant invoking the Indiana RFRA when sued for discrimination against Atheists R Us?
Sure, I'll repeat. There's a significant bias against atheists. Due to that bias, a conservative judge, given the option, would prefer to rule against atheists. (Even if they're not personally biased, it's simple job security; the last thing they need is a campaign to vote "shall not be retained".) The RFRA gives them the legal justification to do so, if they can frame the arguments presented to them as a violation of a theist's right to practice their religion.
Last edited: