Friday, April 17, 2015


In Civics classes, in elementary school, we were taught that one's rights extended only to the tip of our respective noses.  Our rights could not interefere or impinge on the rights of others.  Recently, we are being told that the right to religious freedom trumps the rights of others.  A person, who does business under a Government license, in a Government zoned area, that depends on Government paved streets and communal transportation to bring customers and supplies to his or her business, has the right to prevent public access to certain individuals, on religious grounds.  We feel that to do so extends their rights well beyond the intended target and puts one's nose into areas it shouldn't be in. 

1 comment:

  1. I agree with what you are saying, but I'd like to point out that every one of these new instances of RFRA laws in various states have a dual purpose ... and one was accomplished in Indiana. Regardless of which side you take in the intolerance of/by religion debate, "corporate personhood" is being written into every one of these laws ... thus giving corporations "human rights". In Indiana, for instance, the discriminatory portion was stricken from the law, leading LGBT supporters to believe that they achieved victory. In truth, both sides in that battle lost because the "corporate personhood" portions still remain intact and thus the true goal of the plutocracy has been advanced.