Progressives want to cancel the privacy rights of the entire society for the sake of the comfort of a tiny minority who have a problem with being publicly naked.
Is there an epidemic of people being fired, denied housing or a restaurant seat because they don’t…
Rick Fischer

This is another of the mistakes of modern jurisprudence, whereby existential and relativistic philosophical ideas moved into legal constructivism allowing untold distortions, giving modern meaning (and notions) in place of original thought and intention.

Consider the fact that a single atheists’ voice can silence an entire religious community despite Constitutional protection against governmental interference with religious belief. In essence the latter portion of the religious clause, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, is ignored entirely.

The religious freedom to practice their faith is virtually outlawed in all public expression in order to shield a non-believer from hearing, or witnessing, opinion contrary to their own belief. From this bastardization of legal principle has come all manner of destructive liberalizations of conduct around group identification and political action. Safe spaces, rioting to prevent free speech being itself considered a form of speech, not to mention money also becoming speech.

Those who call for the granting of special rights, to offset some perceived injustices, are in fact the purveyors (and perpetrators) of injustice themselves. Yet, because they believe theirs is morally just, they allow emotionalism to override rationalism. Their intellect becomes that of a mother protecting an infant, with the law protecting their status of mother or victim as the case may be.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.