>>>Sure. They can say whatever they like at their 'church'.
>>
>>I said the same about invading public space with Christmas, but was overruled. So you can't have it both ways.
>
>"Merry Christmas" and Christmas trees are not designed to cause great emotional distress to anyone. If they do cause great emotional distress I suggest the person (persons) undergoing such distress jump under a speeding bus and end it all.

Distress is overstating it. Nuisance, at most. And that's only an unintended effect of the general feeling of the majority religion that they own everything, including the public space (regardless of the actual percentage of the non-believers and members of other religions). I didn't have any intention more serious than reminding them that they are not alone, that their membership doesn't cover 100% of the people, and that this remainder may disagree with their idea of it being so universal.

But the slippery slope principle is the invention of the anglosaxon common law based legal system - once you allow one mouse a hole, they'll ride herds of elephants through that hole.

>These bas+urds involved in the case at hand are intentionally doing emotional harm.

I don't see how are they different from Pat Robertson or from those guys who were rounding up abortion clinics (and occasionally kill a doctor or two), except by how gross they get. If you allow these, then you must allow for the rest of the kind (which I wouldn't allow - all of them should qualify under hate speech and be forbidden to speak in public). Such is your legal system.