and, why is "religious freedom" a contradiction in terms?

because religion is identical to slavery - or, rather, because religion is a type of slavery. it follows that the idea of "freedom" exercised by the religious person is a kind of deluded stockholm syndrome, the illusion of freedom rather than the actuality of it.

if a religion dictates that a person must pray a certain number of times a day, or have a certain diet, or have sex in a certain way, or wear a type of clothing under threat of either imminent punishment or eternal damnation, who could possibly argue that obeying those dictates is "freedom" - or that interfering with them is the negation of it? any coherently thinking person should be able to see that it is the religion that is imposing a restriction on freedom, and that interfering with the ideology's grasp on the individual is breaking the chains of bondage.

this is not a new insight, either - it is classical in nature, going back to plato's allegory of the cave. these people only think they are free because they cannot see what freedom is, to the point that they recoil in fear when it is presented to them.

to argue for the observance of "religious freedom" out of "respect for believers" is consequently intellectually equivalent to arguing for the continuation of slavery in order to not perturb the slaves. it is in every way a backwards, regressive position that can almost never be justified, except perhaps in the realm of distant anthropology; about the only people left on this earth that deserve "religious freedom" are in the andaman islands - everybody else deserves to have the chains smashed, the cord cut, the delusions destroyed...

and, that is not disrespect.

disrespect is smiling and nodding; disrespect is looking the other way, as people are exploited and taken advantage of.

this has little to do with the legislation, other than to point out the absurdity of the claim - there is no such thing as "religious freedom", but only emancipation from ignorance.