> You only really need 1 counterexample to disprove a theory. No. Don't be absurd. By and large the conversation people are having here is meaningful because w

> You only really need 1 counterexample to disprove a theory. No. Don't be absurd. By and large the conversation people are having here is meaningful because we're talking about the extent to which people (mostly american citizens of the age of majority in this case) face substantial constraints to doing what they want, constraints which are imposed on them by a third party against their will. If your counterexamples substantially consist of people voluntarily making commitments for the sake of their beliefs in a world where avoiding that commitment is trivial, then your counterexamples don't really expose a problem and any remedies which would purport to address the problem would in fact act to reduce freedom. You are, however, right to retreat from some of the trivial barriers you had been mentioning before and looking instead into the sphere of cultural sentiment and public perception. This is easily more relevant than availability of opportunities of employment by a religious institution.