I agree Kylie.. but when prodding changes to shoving it down a person's throat, how many are going to consider your rights and point of view when you're not willing to talk to them.
I suppose it depends to what degree you think rights
are something that must exist by consensus. While I suppose that certain things just might not happen, and some may even be less likely to pass the higher courts, without some degree of popular consensus... I also think there are many places where some people are going to be obstinate, and a fair few where they may be physically dangerous about opposing the idea to boot. Rights are also about a discussion of more or less fundamental principles, so the argument doesn't have to be entirely about convincing "enough people." It can also be about convincing the people who serve as the gatekeepers of the system, the people who are charged with upholding a certain consistency of ideas as well as a certain sense of what works in the present. Granted some people may not agree on things like how the notions of "equality" written in the Constitution (or even in the 14th Amendment, ugh) should be interpreted today, but at least there is some
institutional basis there to argue about consistency of principles and hopefully some empirical evidence.
The state is certainly not a perfect forum for anything and it can be misused too (quite often has) -- but it's sometimes equally or more useful than waiting for a certain popular percentage. Particularly if there are likely to be some especially nasty abuses of people in the meantime, or if the people you're waiting for happen to be the particularly vocal and reluctant (even some, nasty!) holdouts in a time of otherwise more positive change.
To flip it around: People don't all agree that they should pay taxes, or pay taxes for all the things they do... But the government doesn't grant them "rights" to refuse based on that. It says we've looked at the situation, we tried this another way that let you all run loose before (and wow that really
had a lot of problems), and now this is what we're gonna go ahead and do.
When a woman gently and politely says she will serve LGBT folks but not cater a wedding suggests a possible willingness to discuss things.. when you see their yelp and facebook page hours later being trolled with death threats and other things..
Eh. There are ways to talk back to death threats, whether brusquely, through hard logic and philosophy, even snidely, or more in the mode of litigation. But I don't know of any rampant, overall trend where either 1) anyone has installed requirements that actually positively help anyone who would make serious death threats avoid a negative response or 2) that in fact, those are particularly common coming from the pro-/LGBT side.
You win support and respect by calm and polite discourse.. not by virtually burning down the business.
It's a hunch -- but something about how you're framing all this still feels far-fetched or out of context to me. I do suppose some people are getting over the top on the response as well as on trying to shut people out. But I don't have enough info to see that it's somehow all so frequently pervasively unreasonable, or actually violent or terroristic, if you will, in a way that I'm sensing from the hints here? Or maybe we're thinking of different things. Maybe I could use a link or few that shows where or how many people you're talking about and some hint how we know what they really intend by the rhetoric (if you can find so many direct supposed death threats).
... Whereas if a business says they will not serve LGBT, it's pretty clear I think what they
mean to try and do by that.
Anyway, I don't think saying you don't support a business that won't support your people - or that one won't look kindly upon them for discriminating on these grounds, whoever you may be - is being unreasonable either. And if others agree, that's a person's right - no? I guess this sort of reasoning fails if you start with the premise that a right to deny anyone might be as good "self-expression" as a right to include (this is pretty much where Elaine Photography ended up in some desperation), but they don't really serve the same function for consumers if you apply that kind of logic here.