Let's take a look at religious extremism shall we? I'm sure we're all aware of the stereotypical image of a fanatic: A Muslim, dressed in a turban or kufi, sporting a beard and robe, under which he carries a homemade bomb and an AK47. But what does religious extremism actually mean? [quote]Religious extremism can be defined as a person or group that takes the position that if others do not follow their ways, they will be damned, often taking action to defend their beliefs.[/quote] Whilst that definitely applies to Islamic Fanatics in pretty much everyone's mind, what with 9/11, the 7/7 underground bombings and IS, have you stopped to consider extremists in other religions? Take a look at the Westborough Baptist Church. Their religious ideals are certainly uncommon, but also fall under the definition of religious extremism. They sit outside funerals of babies and servicemen to condemn them for not sharing their beliefs. They preach hate and judgement against non believers. Throwing abuse and, sometimes, stones an other junk, at grieving relatives. One thing that's been going around the forums a lot lately is the right for Christians to serve homosexuals on religious grounds which, whilst many of us may not agree with, seems to be a fair expression of religious freedoms. But, wait! That means taking action against someone in defence of their religious beliefs which is, by definition, Religious Extremism. This isn't a dig at people's right to express their freedoms, nor a dig at Christianity in general, more a worry for the future ramifications of this law. Essentially, we are saying religious extremism is justified. Sure, for now it's only mild religious extremism, far from the atrocities of 9/11 or the Gaza conflicts. But how do we define an acceptable level of fanaticism? Is it when others are injured in our quest for religious expression? You could argue that the psychological trauma of being refused service is already damaging our fellow man. So is it ok so long as we're only causing mental trauma? But doesn't that mean that sensory deprivation is acceptable, when used to spread the word of our beliefs or in the saving of souls. Look at the picture at the top of this post. You could argue that the girl on the left is just being patriotic, but under the law of Islam, so is the girl on the right. Where is the line drawn on acceptable levels of fanaticism? Is it really down to nothing more than cultural perspective? Will this law one day be used to justify Christian suicide bombers? The indoctrination of children in a bid to save their souls? And would you have a problem with this, flood? [spoiler]Insert obligatory bel-air/dinosaur ending here. [/spoiler] EDIT: I'm not trying to compare terrorist bombings to refusing service. The 9/11 and 7/7 bombings are atrocities which, in my mind, are inexcusable. But refusing service based on sexual preference and bombing public buildings are both forms of religious extremism, with mild extremism like prejudice based on sexuality being made acceptable by being ratified into law. What I'm trying to ask here is: What is considered an acceptable level of extremism? Can these new laws be used to justify more violent forms of extremism under the guise of religious freedom? When does it end? TL;DR: Refusing service to someone based in their sexuality with religious justification is a form of religious extremism. Now that America has ratified discrimination against gays into law, how will this effect "acceptable" levels of fanaticism in the future? What is an except able level of fanaticism to you? EDIT: So much butthurt. This is not an attack on America or Christianity.