"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

since we are talking about legal situations and discrimination I'm not sure that is a relevant legal argument.  Can you give me some laws or cases that prove all sins must be equal to claim a religious objection?

FOR EXAMPLE, if you want a kosher meal in prison, you can't get one unless you ALSO observe the Sabbath and say your morning and evening prayers and generally FOLLOW the other rules and can demonstrate some understanding of these to a rabbi.

Should these religious exempted populations be forced into an isolated geography, or have their children banned from public parks and schools?

Why would they need to be isolated?

I don't understand this question. The remedy for what?

FOR EXAMPLE, if you want a kosher meal in prison, you can't get one unless you ALSO observe the Sabbath and say your morning and evening prayers and generally FOLLOW the other rules and can demonstrate some understanding of these to a rabbi.

The non-vaccers CAN'T infect the vaccinated kids.

you don't appear to want to allow a religious objection to vaccinations, correct?

if someone says religious objection, you say no, they stand on their religious objection, what then?  what do you do?  how do you remedy the situation?  what's the solution?

btw having bodily autonomy also means NOT doing something with it or having something done to it, it doesn't just apply to killing things, if you don't believe in the slogan "my body my choice" that's find but if you do it would not be accurate if you limit that choice would it?

Actually, I'm not sure you have me correctly: I am fine with religious based objections to things, even to some things I find ridiculous (like religiously objecting to proven science), on principle. THat's kind of the quandary I find myself in. If they are allowed to object and risk herd immunity, then is it then discrimination to segregate this potentially infectious population? Is that the 'remedy' to their objection? It seems in practical terms the only way to protect those who cannot be inoculated (like children less than a year old, newborns, etc) when we are a society of shared spaces and public utilities. It seems less than American to me, deciding one population of religious people can't use something like a publicly funded park because they are exercising their religious freedom, yes, to the detriment of others, but there's no provision for that in the law. Still, I feel like our first duty is to protect the most vulnerable, and in this case, it's kids under the age of 1, or kids who CAN'T get inoculated. I don't have a hard and fast view on the matter, but if you rewind to where my kids were 10 months old, you can be sure I wouldn't want them going to a school with a Hasidic kid in Brooklyn. That said, does that make me anti-Semitic? I don't think so. 

And I don't think I'm arguing explicitly that the cake maker should have to make anyone a cake, if that's what your my body my choice is referencing. His first amendment rights were upheld, I just think that it's fair play if every day, a group of whoever he won't make cakes for pickets his store. Right to assembly. I get the Brutal quandary though: standing on religious grounds, not freedom of expression grounds, means that he should have to follow all of the laws in his religion equally. 

Maybe I used that argument specifically because I knew you would make the connection.

If everyone is vaccinated except those who refuse to get vaccinated, those who are vaccinated shouldn't get sick.

the strict teachings of many things are all falling by the wayside, including formality, manners, respect etc, eventually humanity will be on homogeneous bland thing with little to no difference, biological automatons as there will be little to nothing for anyone to disagree on with any real conviction or passion.

Ok, as another example, if someone believed their taxes were supporting an immoral war, would it be acceptable for them to refuse to pay?

If you refuse to get vaccines, you're refusing the remedy to measles.

Ok, as another example, if someone believed their taxes were supporting an immoral war, would it be acceptable for them to refuse to pay?

And if someone said their religion required that unwed women have abortions, could conservatives reasonably object?

And if freedom of speech is sacrosanct, should someone be fired for expressing white-nationalist opinions?

I just don't think giving (almost) everyone a free-pass is a sustainable solution.

Should Christian Scientists and the Amish be banned from public spaces because they don't believe in vaccines (or simply don't trust the government and or pharmaceutical corporations)?

If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.

Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.

Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.  If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it.

Nonsense, criminal law is not coercive in nature.  You commit the crime, and are brought to justice.  

BY FORCE.