I agree with that sentence. The issue here is preferential treatment of one religion (Christianity) over all others. Several elected officials in South Carolina who had role in drafting/pushing through the “I Believe Act” made it clear that similar license plates designed specifically for Pagans and Muslims would not be allowed. The South Carolina legislature passed a law to create a Christian license plate. The government did not intend nor did they later allow for other religions to be accommodated.

There is definitely no secular legislative purpose served with such a law.

Christians who cry about being persecuted should step back, reflect, and consider being a little more friendly to pluralism in the public square. Pluralism is a reality that many conservatives still refuse to accept. Respecting pluralism will ultimately help not hinder the evangelism efforts of evangelicals.

Your Equal Access analogy only works if the Pagans and Muslims are allowed their own license plates….

I don’t see that allowing someone to choose a religious themed license plate constitutes state endorsement or favor of religion, nor does it involve any kind of coercion. It’s a matter of free speech. Now if the state required those license plates, that would be something else but this is voluntary, costs the state nothing, and is a choice made by the individual owner. Under Equal Access, schools which have extra-curricular activities must allow religious-based clubs and gatherings that do not interfere with the primary instructional purpose of the school. A number of states allow alumni of their major universities to display emblems or order license plates in their school colors with school symbols on them. This would not seem to be any different than that.