So by your logic we should allow everyone freedom to believe what they want so long as it doesn't "affect" anyone. Alright, so I suppose so long and the pedophiles don't actually touch a kid we should just let them be then? Or as long as the satanists "satisfy themselves" with animal sacrifices but never cross the human sacrifice boundary they should be left alone as well?

I also suppose you're one of those "freedom of speech" types that believe people should be able to say literally anything without consequence so long as nothing actually happens? I believe the classic example is screaming fire in a theatre? Another example would be to threaten to murder or rape someone but not actually go through with it.

I also noticed you didn't provide any alternative argument that "doesn't require you to compromise your commitment to the truth and your commitment to God that would get you the same resulting conclusions."

So please, do provide such an argument. I'd genuinely like to see it given the faulty logic behind the absolutist stance you seem to hold. Can't wait to see you somehow justify the San Fran gay men's chorus literally singing a "joyful" song about forcibly converting children to homosexuality against their parents will because of "free speech".

So by your logic we should allow everyone freedom to believe what they want so long as it doesn't "affect" anyone. Alright, so I suppose so long and the pedophiles don't actually touch a kid we should just let them be then? Or as long as the satanists "satisfy themselves" with animal sacrifices but never cross the human sacrifice boundary they should be left alone as well?

I also suppose you're one of those "freedom of speech" types that believe people should be able to say literally anything without consequence so long as nothing actually happens? I believe the classic example is screaming fire in a theatre? Another example would be to threaten to murder or rape someone but not actually go through with it.

I also noticed you didn't provide any alternative argument that "doesn't require you to compromise your commitment to the truth and your commitment to God that would get you the same resulting conclusions."

So please, do provide such an argument. I'd genuinely like to see it given the faulty logic behind the absolutist stance you seem to hold.