George Santayana was right.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Yes I do but you can't violate others rights at the same time. I see it all as a slippery slope in this great new experiment.

Of course you can. There are many laws laws that restrict the rights of one group or individual in favor of the rights of others. Democracy is a balancing act between these rights.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...reedom/283331/

Pew's research suggests that the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. On balance, that may mean more freedom, not less, is afforded to all.

For example, Fundamentalist Mormons do not have a right to multiple wives, even if their religion says they do. Also, if religious groups receive federal funding or tax-exempt status, both proselytizing and political activity are limited.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Of course you can. There are many laws laws that restrict the rights of one group or individual in favor of the rights of others. Democracy is a balancing act between these rights.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...reedom/283331/

Pew's research suggests that the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. On balance, that may mean more freedom, not less, is afforded to all.

For example, Fundamentalist Mormons do not have a right to multiple wives, even if their religion says they do. Also, if religious groups receive federal funding or tax-exempt status, both proselytizing and political activity are limited.

Correct. People with religious values tend to think they should trump everything. But that way, as seen in countless historical examples, lies freedom-killing rule by absolute believers, and war to the knife when they collide with competing groups of absolute believers. Ancient and modern examples are endless. Separation of church and state is one of the best things our founders bequeathed to us, and you'd think more conservatives would value it.

In the immediate case, we have the supposed right of persons to refuse service to anyone, vs. the emerging human right not to suffer the insulting harm of discriminatory rejection by others. If the would-be discriminators do not get their way, they lose what? The right to be mean to other people they don't like? On the other hand, if the gays are not accorded protection here, they lose the right to feel they are accorded the full rights of human beings in their own society. They must instead feel dehumanized and insecure, fearful for their other rights, and for their very lives.

The last is no exaggeration at all--groups that suffer discrimination are always subject to murderous violence--sometimes covert, sometimes open and extreme, depending on the winds of culture and the endless war between liberalism and hate.

So I am foursquare committed to settling things like this the liberal way. I feel sorry for the anguish of the frustrated would-be discriminators, and I am sorry they have to feel like victims. But like those that want to sacrifice babies to Baal, they're just going to have to compromise a little.

[bobabode]

Well said Don Q both points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2P_RJJYjzY

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Of course you can. There are many laws laws that restrict the rights of one group or individual in favor of the rights of others. Democracy is a balancing act between these rights.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...reedom/283331/

Pew's research suggests that the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. On balance, that may mean more freedom, not less, is afforded to all.

For example, Fundamentalist Mormons do not have a right to multiple wives, even if their religion says they do. Also, if religious groups receive federal funding or tax-exempt status, both proselytizing and political activity are limited.

Thats true, and nobody thought of Gay rights in a Judeo Christian society to include their human rights. They would have been hung for blasphemy.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Thats true, and nobody thought of Gay rights in a Judeo Christian society to include their human rights. They would have been hung for blasphemy.

They weren't too fond of blacks having their freedom or women voting either. Things change, -5.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

They weren't too fond of blacks having their freedom or women voting either. Things change, -5.

And, contrary to popular belief, not every change is for the worse. In fact most are for the better. Especially when the change is for the common good.

Dave