Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>
> > > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
> > > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it
> > > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?
>
> > It's called DEMOCRACY.
>
> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over
> nomenclature?

So the minority should always have its own way?

Who decides what is moral and what is not moral in the society? A
minority who believes one thing, or a majority who believes another? It
is untenable to declare one position morally superior to another when
the position is at odds with that of the overwhelming majority in
society unless you can show a source from which you derive your beliefs
which is superior to the prevailing moral beliefs of the society as a
whole.


I don't want the minority of the Aryan Nations deciding what is and is
not right for America any more than I want the local Gay & Lesbian
Alliance to. But I do, in general, trust the majority of Americans, who
are the finest people on earth, to articulate the best course for
morality in this country. I haven't agreed with every position our
society has taken, but I can respect 95% of it, and I have been able to
live with all of it.


>
> > I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
> > give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
> > because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
> > discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>
> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison
> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.

They are both limiting people from doing what they want to because the
society has decided that the majority has the right to have its
sensibilities protected from the minority who want to go their own way,
and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it.


>
> > Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>

So our society, as a whole, does not want to become Sodom & Gomorrah in
order for the abberant views of a minority of people to be given legal,
and by implication, moral sanction. You may not like that, but that's
how the system works. I make no apology for it.

I'm offended at the thought of Gay marriage. I'm offended at the thought
of polygamy. And I have the legal right to use the ballot box to impose
my ethics upon you even if you resent it. Even if you're hurt by it. And
even if you feel it is discriminatory or unconstitutional. And vice
versa, by the way.



> > Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
> > driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes.
>
> See above, and learn what "invidious" means.
>
> > I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law
> > is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example.
>
> This also is not invidious.

But it IS discrimination* because I am being denied the right to do
something I'd like to do for reasons that don't seem valid to ME.

* I am using the term loosely, just as most everyone who doesn't get
their way tends to use the word.