Cynthetiq

In countries that are bound by religious moral codes, yes, I find it legalistic since they have wrapped their religious codes into their legal codes.

However, in countries like the US where everyone is supposed to be equal regardless, some will follow religious morals on top of legal code. Those that are not religious are equally free to follow the moral standards that they decide for themselves on top of the legal code, but it's not as easily seen as example Hassidic morals. A circle within a circle if you will.

What I'd like to make clear is that in order to keep the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and religion, then I cannot say what they decide for their religious offerings as needing to be changed, to me that's an equal censorship and is offending to fundamentalist or even liberal religious followers. In the Gay Teen in Fundamentalist treatment program thread if it is not allowing the parents to do such an action then IMO their First Amendment rights are being violated.

If this interpretation above means that I'm looking at it from a legalist standpoint then again yes, since the Constitution is supposed to protect those basic rights.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.