Jay Leno is a comedian and being a comedian means poking fun and pointing out absurdities. During his opening monologue on a recent show, he referenced a "sacred" building in the Sikh religion when suggesting that Mitt Romney vacationed in a golden palace.
As a result of the joke, someone from the Sikh faith filed a lawsuit against him because of his statements, "claiming Leno is responsible for encouraging hatred and ridicule of his religion".
Dr. Randeep Dhillon, the person suing Jay Leno, is right, however. Just simply showing the building to people and educating them about it is going to draw ridicule - in the same way that we ridicule the Catholic church for the Pope's (as Sarah Silverman says) "house that is a city". Wondering where their next meal is going to come from and being taught that an invisible sky fairy father is always there for them while their cult leaders amass such massive fortunes at their expense is, well, ridiculous. Shovel on the ridicule.
Where Dr. Randeep Dhillon is wrong, however, is in his suggestion that what Jay Leno did was wrong - religion IS absurd and it IS deserving of ridicule. Thank you Jay Leno.
It is "freedom of speech" not "freedom from being offended" - for the same reason that you are entitled to say crazy shit like "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" or "evolution isn't true", I'm entitled to say "you're batshit crazy" (though I'd be the only one making a statement of fact).
Stephen Fry put it succinctly: ”It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?”
And for a reminder of Sarah Silverman's plan to feed the world: