erion

What a closed minded pile of crap.

I was fully intending to respond to this point by point, but as I approached the end of the post I became more and more disgusted.

What it comes down to is that, in America, people don't have to abide by anyone's particular brand of moral correctness. If I want to live and worship as a Christian, I can certainly do that. However, I don't have the right to impose my definitions of morality on anyone else against their will. If I choose to worship my cat and obey her mental commands, I can do that as well, as long as I don't force anyone else to do otherwise.

What is being perceived as a swing to the left is really just a modern reading of constitutional law. As we move toward a more enlightened (in terms of knowledge and understanding) society, it becomes clear to most people that the Christian Moral standard which underlies many laws in the united states must be re-interpreted for a modern age. This may involve, for the time being, explicitly defining rights for certain minorities (homosexuals and bisexuals, minority religions) that older interpretations of the law would have allowed to be excluded, but only until it becomes an accepted norm that all people should be able to speak, act, worship, conduct business, live, and love as they choose, so long as it doesn't involve economic, mental or bodily harm to another individual.

This article accuses the "State Church of the Left" of trying to force its agenda on others, but what modern civil rights and environmental law is really doing is moving people away from the idea that the law is only meant to protect people who think and believe and act the same way that an ever-shrinking, ever-more-vocal minority believes is acceptable.

Limiting rights to certain groups based on any number of factors limits the potential of humanity to reach its full potential.