I didn’t go down the path you’ve highlighted because I felt Dawkins was trying to say more than that. The fact that he compared it to the Muslim extremists is impossible to ignore in relation to his overall point.

I completely agree that religion should be given no special privilege with regards to speech. If a religious person can say it, a non-religious person should be able to say it and if that’s all I felt Dawkins was saying I would have agreed with him.

In defense of that point, it bears noting that I stand against the constitutionality of “hate speech” laws. I don’t know which of the 3 statements on the T-Shirt were most notable in the case, so let’s break down each statement:

1. Homosexuality is a sin: There’s only two ways to disapprove of it, focus on the word “sin” as a religious discussion, which would fall under freedom of religion, or as “hate speech”. But that can only be “hate speech” if society has rejected the religious views of Christianity, something our government can not do and allow for freedom of religion. So to allow for freedom of religion we must both allow someone to say “Homosexuality is the source of salvation” and another to say “Homosexuality is a sin”.

2. Islam is a lie: A fully religious statement, I can’t imagine how that could be viewed as anything but covered under freedom of religion

3. Abortion is murder: I’m not sure who the ‘hate speech’ would be directed at…

So I’m assuming it was #1 that was the point of contention, and as I’ve shown, freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom to be atheist and write atheist books, requires that it also allow free speech and denouncing other groups that don’t agree with their viewpoint, whether or not someone considers it “hateful”.

Said yet another way, a world where an atheist saying “Christians are pure evil” is considered “hate speech” would be just as in defiance of freedom of religion as a world that considered “Homosexuality is a sin” “hate speech”.

The whole concept of “hate speech” is contrary to the 1st amendment both in regards to free speech and freedom of religion. As I’ve shown, the two topics are intrinsically linked (there’s a reason they’re in the same clause of the constitution).

“The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn’t: indeed, they couldn’t, because free speech is deemed not to include ‘hate speech’. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate.”

The problem Dawkins has with this is not it’s controversy, but the legal favoritism given to region. He mentions it along side a Supreme Court ruling that allowed a Church to use hallucinogenic drugs while forbidding it for other citizens. This is the undeserved respect. Religious opinions deserve no more special treatment than any other opinions, and giving them additional legal protection while not allowing the same for non-religious persons is unjust.