I see another post by a homophobic christian. She's entitled to her beliefs, isn't she?

Not a good start for a society.

Criminal laws in the early New England colonies were based on the scriptures, especially the Old Testament. Many civil laws and procedures were modelled after the English common law. Puritans banned fancy clothing, living with Indians and smoking in public. Hell, they even banned Christmas for a while.

And that’s where a lot of trouble comes in, I think. Religion, as written by man, has with rare exception a plot line that reads as such: "There’s this chosen group, favored by God among all others. That makes everything they do and think right, of course. So anyway, this chosen group makes up, like, a shit-ton of laws that make it really, really hard for people to join them. And since God loves them best, he lets them tell everyone what’s icky and what’s not."

“Okay, but what kind of evidence will this group have that no one else has to make it so powerf—”

“Dude, chill. We’ve got loads of car chases and explosions.”

Meaning, they rely only on fear and distaste, which inevitably translates as vitriol and hateful self-righteousness. When it comes to actual context, meaning, reasoning or history, they go to deflection, diversion and straw-men arguments.

Is the woman you speak of allowed her opinion? Not if it’s based on misinformation, no. Not if it’s based in malice, no. Not if it’s meant to intimidate or demean, no. As a college professor once told us, everyone’s entitled to an informed opinion. The 1st Amendment remains in effect, but so do consequences.

Sources: Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/puritans-ban-gambling-and-whole-lot-things/#:~:text=Seven%20months%20after%20gaming%20was,would%20cost%20you%20five%20shillings.

[This is from and American perspective, but it overlays any country.]