If I'm reading this correctly, an opinion about, say, regulating marriage could be permitted if it was based on a "religious text", but if not, or the authoriti

If I'm reading this correctly, an opinion about, say, regulating marriage could be permitted if it was based on a "religious text", but if not, or the authorities didn't recognize the religion/text (e.g. Pastafarians or something) then the same opinion might not be allowed. It still seems to me open to interpretation whether promoting hate of political parties is permissible. A political party can be considered a "mental disability" - maybe that seems silly in this context, but it isn't uncommon for partisans to literally say that the party they dislike is a mental illness or made up of the mentally ill. Furthermore, it seems clear from the list that "identifiable" doesn't necessarily mean visually identifiable. So the concept they had in mind eludes me. In legal writing, sometimes they will list things and say it is "not intended to be exhaustive". So I wonder if the list of identifiable groups is or not. (And about the "reasonable person standard" - since it is explicitly written into law in some cases, and it has a name, I would expect it isn't always implicit. I am not a lawyer, and realize civil, criminal, American, and other law isn't the same, but the "eggshell rule" seems like an example of how and why the expectation of a "reasonable person" might not be considered an appropriate standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)