> There is a difference between being in bad taste and being illegal.
It's called "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law",
Purposely violating the principle of the law by abusing loopholes, and proceeding to claim that technically violating the spirit of the law is not illegal because you came up with a loophole that you believe is not incompatible with the letter of the law just goes to show the level of dedication that you have to break the law without being punished for your transgression.
If I wear a shirt with MEDICARE FOR ALL, GREEN NEW DEAL (or SUPPORT ACA and REJOIN PARIS ACCORDS) on it, that's clear partisan support. That's illegal. Thin blue line flags and "support our troops" are out of place and it's two-faced to pretend it isn't just a signal of partisan support. These are some of the major party issues.
Bad taste has nothing to do with it. If someone wears a SUPPORT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT shirt, that's support of Trump, not endorsement of the concept of government or something nonpartisan.
I agree that things like 'thin blue line' and 'support our troops' have a political element that would be out of bounds in states with these laws, but its not clear to me that the example cited in the story approaches this level of explicit political meaning.
If it is what he says, then it was simply a copy of text that all soldiers swear to when they enlist. The U.S. Army is not a political organization and contains people from all backgrounds.
What really seems to have happened here is that the author was able to reasonably infer this police officers political affiliation from his clothing and that is not what is prohibited in these laws.
