As example, we have the freedom of speech; however, the freedom of it should never equate with some form of force that restricts speech.
Equally, the right to bear arms should never be translated into a mandate to restrict the very freedom to own a weapon.
And to hit the point home, religious freedom should never include the protections of activities that counter that freedom, at the expense of human dignity or the very existence of Life itself. For example, If the practice of Satanism, Kabalism, Zionism, Mysticism, or any other global belief, presents itself as contrary to the Constitutional Amendments and/or the sacred inalienable American rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, then it should neither be ruled as a protected religion/class, nor be legally recognized as even relevant by the American judicial system.
Bottom line – if organizations practice activities that are the antithesis of American values and a healthy society, then they should be cast off, closely monitored as possible social threats, and are not afforded the general legal protections of liberty and equality. Simply put: “Negative Rights” should not be a “right”.
If you want a concrete example, then here it is, posed as a question… If you would, could you please tell America how you might protect the rights of a particular “Church of Satan” (that openly admits to sacrificing children) so that said “church” might have the legal right to extend its reach and audience across America.
The moral dilemma of this arguement quickly presents itself, doesnt it? Thus, if it “repugnant to the Constitution”, then it should be rendered null and void, no matter if it is an unconstitutional law, or an unconstitutional entity. Our Founding Fathers did not have to deal with issues like this – they simply fired up the ole bonfire and stake. This is 2024 and we cannot resort to that – we need legal clarifications instead. Thanks.