What the fuck? You have to be trolling at this point. Otherwise I am alarmed by how confused you are.

Let's look at how far off you are with this stretch:

1. You apply US legal terms to UK legal matters. The UK has no misdemeanors and felonies, that distinction was legally abolished in the mid 20th century.

2. You are now taking a sign you saw in a photo of a protest and applying its text to the intentions of a wholly separate group of people: the prosecutors.

3. You pull your bizarre logic from all over the place, whether it's connected or not. Assumptions about the US legal system, assumptions about the intent of the lawyers, and extrapolations from the text of one sign at a protest.

You're reaching hard and ignoring facts in favor of your conjecture.

Oho! You almost got me with this one. It almost looked relevant, until I remembered that prison time has fuckall to do with whether prosecutors being charges or not.

Did you lose track of the history of the conversation? We're talking about UK prosecutors refusing to prosecute for peaceful protests, and you're changing the subject to "peaceful protests don't lead to prison time."

Almost!!

>Let's also talk about the fact that "peaceful protest" doesn't lead to prison.

Oh my god, do you actually believe that?!

You keep ping ponging between this nirvana fallacy argument and a straw man argument to justify doing nothing.

So far you have argued against stopping anything because

A) it's unreasonable to ask for 100% cessation and you imply that 100% or 0% are the only options B) you assume China will never stop C) you apparently believe that you should only do what's right when everyone else is already doing it.

You assume, and I think incorrectly, that taking decisive climate action will be too Britain's detriment. You seem to forget that an oil dependency is a military liability as well as an economic liability, and where most of the oil in the world comes from.

If you can't think of a way in which the rest of the world can pressure China to take action, you lack imagination.

"What difference does a single grain of sand make?" asked every grain on the beach.

Even if the amount Britain contributes doesn't make a difference (and if you had IVs of poison dripping into your veins, don't tell me you would leave one on just cause it wasn't the one dripping the most), Britain's actions make a difference. Countries look to other countries as examples. Countries feel pressure from the actions of other countries. Britain might not make the biggest difference, but they can set an example.

Or Britain can sit, lazy as a turd on a log, and do nothing because "why should I be the first one to do a good thing? Why should I stop doing a bad thing if someone else is doing it worse?" and let everyone else feel comfortable pointing at everyone else instead of doing anything, and we can all go down pointing.

So no, Britain isn't going to solve the climate crisis on its own. But asking it to stop being part of the problem isn't crazy.

"We aren't the worst offender, so don't ask us to stop offending" is not a compelling argument.

And I'm not even sure what you think if we expand your views beyond this one issue. That collapse is inevitable, so we'd better keep law and order today even if it hastens chaos tomorrow? That we shouldn't try a little bit because it's actually going to take a lot? That people should accept that they're doomed and just sit down with that quietly instead of making elected officials uncomfortable about inaction?

>You want "blacks not wanted" signs up at restaurants?

I'm sure as long as he's not black, he wouldn't mind.

>Forcing a person to accept a theory as a law is the same as forcing a religion onto them

He says as he laments that it is harder to force his religion into people now.

And I see what you're trying to do by inaccurately labeling homosexuality "a theory." But "theory" doesn't mean "thing I don't want to accept."

Actual scientific research leaves no doubt that sexuality isn't a choice. You don't have to accept it, it's just there.

And frankly, nobody cares if you accept that or not. This law doesn't force you to believe anything. You can still be as bigoted as you want when it comes to LGBTQ issues. Hell, you can still be a racist! But you can't discriminate against people based on race or sexual identity.

They don't get to discriminate against you, you don't get to discriminate against them. If you don't like equality, you're living in the wrong country.

Do you ever answer questions, or just dodge them and ask another?

Religious freedom means that you have the right to believe whatever it is you believe and worship however you wish to worship, so long as it doesn't trample on the liberties and sovereignty of others.

You may absolutely believe from your religious teachings that Black people should be discriminated against. You may not, however, refuse to hire Black people based on that belief.

You may believe that women are objects and belong to their husbands. That does not supercede their right to autonomy and give you permission to rape or beat them.

So in summary, "religious freedom" means you can believe and practice any faith, but you cannot force others to participate in your practicing thereof or violate any existing rights of others for the purposes of your religion.

Hahahahahaha, what?! No, of course it isn't. You want to be able to inflict your religious beliefs and practices on others and that's exactly what Sharia law is.

Oh man. That's an amazing stretch there. Like the two things have anything to do with one another.

You think if Whitmer wasn't signing this bill she'd be out there driving the steamroller? Come on.

Man, someone didn't pay attention during HR training. Nazis aren't a protected class. They are a club you join. They are not something you're born with and cannot change.

>No one should be forced to associate with people they don't want to.

I have terrible news for you about life...

But in rereading your comment I'm noticing (and I wonder if you missed this) that it's really a justification of racism and religious discrimination, too.

Sorry, do you think "religious freedom" means you can do whatever you want, regardless of its effects on others, so long as you shout "religion!" when you do it?

Think really carefully if you want that to be the case, and remember alllll the different religions out there and what people have used them to justify.

Have you never heard the expression "your right to swing your arm ends at your neighbor's face"?

Yeah? There a clause in there that says you can't go to church? Can't pray? Can't read your Bible or have Christmas off?

In fact, is there a clause in there that actually affects the actual practice of your religion in any way?

What...uh...what's the origin of that sub's name?