On your first point: You are correct; you are not a lawyer.
Your example merely proves my original point: The Constitution typically does not protect a person’s desire to ACT according with their religion; it protects only their right not to act in a way that violates their religion (there are nuances here, but that is a fair sum-up of the issue). When your desire to follow the tenets of your religion violate the civil rights of others, you can be prevented from doing so. When your religion dictates that you not act in a certain way that offends others, you cannot be forced to act that way. As long as the government can articulate a reasonable non-religious basis for preventing you from acting in accordance with you religion (i.e., health concerns, public safety, maintaining law and order, ect.) they can prevent you from acting. Thus, Indians that smoke peyote (an illegal drug) as part of their religious observances can be penalized for it; if a Jew wants to wear a yarmulka in violation of the military’s dress code, he can be penalized for it; if a Jew wants to burn his chometz in violation of the fire code, he can be fined; if a Jew wants to shecht in violation of a shechita ban, he can probably be prosecuted. I’m not saying I like it; but when we throw around terms like freedom of religion, we should at least know what we are talking about so as not to sound ignorant and undermine our position.

As far as your second point (“Why not have an intelligent and honest conversation about this pressing issue…”) I’m not clear if you mean between ourselves or with them. You can’t have an intellectual conversation with someone who’s actions are purely based on hatred. This person is only looking to make a name for himself and to exert his hatred of Jews and Judaism. His intentions are not based on misguided understandings, but rather purely based on hatred. They have no basis on honesty. Any honest misguided person can be spoken to. A dishonest person is right even when he’s wrong!

For all those yelling freedom of religion – this law is very likely NOT a violation of the First Amendment. the Free Exercise Clause usually does not protect religious people from being entitled to positively practice their religion in cases where the government prohibits certain conduct for legitimate reasons; the First Amendment usually protects religious people from having to act in a way that violates their religion in cases where a law obligates them to act in certain ways. I.e., a law requiring people to work on shabbos would be unconstitutional; a law banning shechita as inhumane or unsanitary would (unfortunately) probably be constitutional.

At the end of the day, if San Francisco want’s to make a stupid law, they will be able to do so, and Jews can simply go across the bridge to Oakland or drive twenty minutes to San Jose and perform a bris there.

Also, while there is much scholarship supporting the health benefits of a bris, there is also significant literature that reaches the opposite conclusion. We don’t perform a bris because it is or is not healthy; we do so because God’s law so commands us.

Why not have an intelligent and honest conversation about this pressing issue instead of calling for the destruction of the city and making nonsensical comparisons to HIV and gender alteration surgeries.

Harmful??? Studies in Africa show that circumcision reduces the rist of transmission of HIV.

PULEEEEZE…
If I had a dollar for every person under 18 in San Fransicko with a tattoo, I could retire today!

Funny too that they want to ban circumcision, but have the government PAY FOR “trans-gender” operations!!!

SICK!!!

HaShem Yirachaim.

Sometimes lies are so obvious that they hit you in the face!

I guess this is Liberals at their best. “Toleration and acceptance of all (except for the Religious)”!

Quote: “We feel this is a very harmful thing… The measure would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a child, except for a valid medical reason.”

I guess that if he is so concerned about health issues he, in being consistent, is perforce required to exert energy to ban Homosexuality being that it is proven that such sexual relations increases one’s chance of contracting HIV. (Oops, I guess he stuck his foot in his mouth.)

Bottom Line: It is a medical fact that circumcised people are less susceptible to having yeast infections than uncircumcised individuals. Thus, negating the fact that such a law would be a breach of one’s constitutional right of Freedom of Religion*, it should always be allowed as a valid medical reason.

* – Yesh Garsim “Freedom FROM Religion”

BTW – After reading up on this gay (oops, I mean guy), it appears to me that he is most likely a gay Jew with an inferiority complex about his background and for being circumcised. I don’t have proof yet of this other than his openness about being gay, but my chush tells me this.