Religious Liberty Task Force

This is your personal opinion. Last I checked, the constitution was not interpreted using your personal opinion. Sessions has a whole team of lawyers, and did not create the task force in secret. Your anti-thrism is confusing you.

It's funny how things are always so clear to the befuddled. Do you not remember the recent case of the cake maker and what the supreme court said about his religious rights being violated by government anti-religious bias?

Seven different levels of burning hell would have broken loose.

You've spelled out exactly my concerns. It is concerning more people dont see this as a problem and recognize it as a potential attack on religious freedom.

So, if Achmed Sessions were to use the Qu'ran to justify actions of the US government, you'd be fine with that? This is not a matter of anti-theism, E.

I'm familiar with the case.  The decision of the court was narrow and did not rule on the actions of the baker...

and he is being sued again for the same stuff (because it's still illegal).

If he were logical, I would have no problem with it. 

Exactly, because we aren't talking about the actions of the religious.

The reality is religious books are not needed to justify actions of a secular government.

If they hold value to you, then fine, but don;t use them to speak for other people who may or may not share your religious views and recognize them as any sort of a justification.

That's the problem.

...And now we have a task force to to crack down on those evil non-Christians who don't want to be subject to religious privilege and/or law.  That'll fix 'em!

I'll suspend judgment until I hear that the task force has actually done something worth being concerned about. If it remains unbiased, protects all religions equally, doesn't infringe upon the liberties of the non-religious, and doesn't push people around under the guise of "defending religious freedom", then I will have no problem with it. 

And being an anti-theist is not an excuse to violate the religious rights of citizens. 

 defending immigration policies with religion:

Discrimination is not a religious right.

Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 

When did the Washington Post become a constitutional authority?

Neither is it a governmental or atheistic right

It hardly takes a constitutional authority to recognize religion walking with government policies violates the establishment clause. 

However, assuming the board did discriminate against Phillips...

it does not wash away his discrimination of homosexuals. 

so let us hope he is appropriately called to the carpet this time.

I'll suspend judgment until I hear that the task force has actually done something worth being concerned about. If it remains unbiased, protects all religions equally, doesn't infringe upon the liberties of the non-religious, and doesn't push people around under the guise of "defending religious freedom", then I will have no problem with it. 

There is a (somewhat) open question about whether or not we should accept as a check on government power and abuse the character of the people that populate it. That is, should we judge whether or not to allow the government have some power based upon how the best person will use it or based upon how the worst person will use it.

If we recognize that it is much harder to take away power than it is to grant it, then I think it is prudent to err on the side of very reluctantly allowing power to increase, no matter how favorably we view the person currently wielding it. You can never know who will end up wielding that power in the future. For example, I liked Obama and think he was a decent president and a good man. Yet I objected to his use of drone strikes. My feelings about Obama's use of that power notwithstanding, that power (which has allowed to persist) now rests in the hands of someone who is, generously speaking, an unstable megalomaniac.