Which is the point

Yes, we need to apply moral laws accurately and appropriately.

But US laws don't necessarily derive from a belief structure

All laws derive from a belief structure.

"This should be like this, therefore this law."

The discussion above that I am referring to suggested divine morality rather than social. That makes me nervous because the US cannot institute a state religion.

It absolutely can. You may just wish it does not.

Um, First Amendment absolutely forbids establishment of a state religion

Which can be removed or amended, as with all American laws, by proper democratic action.

...

You do realize it is people who seriously talk like this that keeps the Democratic Party as strong as it is despite thier crazy left edge?

I'm sorry the truth pushes people to associate with a bad crowd.

Recognizing the mutability of American governance is a critical foundation to proper action within it.

It pushes people to form associations that maintain our basic rights to agency.

...You've lost me.

The Democrats are now a cooalition of people wishing to protect thier right to agency from people who would seriously consider taking basic rights away from them.

That's what you see when you look at the actions of the Democratic party?

And if I'm following your implications, me talking about the basic functions of the US government is a threat to people's rights?

That's what I vote for when I vote democrat. I'm economically on the right but I vote democrat mostly to protect my right to agency and to freely associate how I wish.

Specifically how you wish. I'm going to take a stab and say you wouldn't necessarily support the rights of others to freely associate how they wish, depending on what they wanted.

Wait, so is the implication here that Dems never take away rights and Repubs never protect them?

As long as we're not talking conspiracy to cause harm or other situations where danger to others is involved, I do support such rights to associate

No, Beemann

Both sides are f'ing hypocrites

The implication is that the Democrats protect the rights she wants, and the Republicans do not.

I want a side that combines both

I am a gun enthusiast

I believe people have the right to have prejudices

And practice them?

As long as they are not acting in a government capacity and with some protections for provision of basic services, yes Bookworm

Right. So, I think we're running into a different use of communication.

Hobby Lobby should be able to ask two men who kiss in thier store to please leave

A waffle House should be able to tell a black man that they don't serve thier kind

Any 'right' which is able to be justly limited or constrained is, in essence, a privilege. A right, by my understanding, would be innate to a human, and could not be justly constrained in any capacity.

But a grocer for the only grocery store in a small town should not be able to refuse service

Ah, so you believe the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.

Nor should a county clerk as a government agent

I believe the Civil Rights Act has elements that could now be reconsidered

Why should you be denied agency because nobody is competing with you locally?

It's like anti-monopolization. The less competition, the less control you have.

Because there are basic services that I believe society can and should place protections upon. Basic food, shelter, utilities, etc.