[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not reverse but rather open up a very fuzzy loophole.

It's amazing and instructive to see how far the Constitution has been deconstructed when the first amendment is considered, not the law, but a loophole.

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case.

When fundamental freedoms are no longer considered unalienable rights, but are only those rights and freedoms allowed and defined by the government (which was originally prohibited from denying or defining those rights)--when that is the case, then government decides whether those rights are being violated since it prescribes what those rights are. Because you subscribe to this transformation of all rights being dispensed by government, it is easy to see why you think there is no problem with religious freedoms being violated. And why it would be redundant to pass a bill when one is not needed.

On the other hand, those who view certain rights as being inherent and existent before government, and beyond its reach, experience government denying them their exercise of those rights because they conflict with government mandated "rights" meant to benefit specific groups rather than to equally protect everyone, they might well see the only legal, peaceful, recourse would be to "pass a bill" to protect their rights.

I'd be willing to wager that had the bill passed, like magic the violated would start coming out of the woodwork with political action groups pushing them forward.

-spence

Isn't that what is actually happening every time gay activists win a court decision? Aren't those "victims" now coming out of the woodwork in greater frequency and numbers and locations in an unstoppable tide?