> To have rights for homosexuals we had to have rights for racists. Yes, we have decided that there rights that apply to everyone. I don't know why that's rele

> To have rights for homosexuals we had to have rights for racists. Yes, we have decided that there rights that apply to everyone. I don't know why that's relevant. We've long established that there are not universal rights in all things. We, for example, prohibit certain types of religious practices, even with the right to one's own religion. There is of course a tension, but I don't see why this discussion of rights is relevant for this case. In the US case, the issues are the civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace, on the basis of race, religion, and several other protected classes. These have long been adjudicated as being constitutionally valid. If someone speaks up in public against sexual discrimination in the workplace, that person's employer cannot (legally) use that as a firing offense, and cannot let that statement influence job related decisions. We do not extend the same right to other sorts of discrimination, so there isn't a quid pro quo set of rights, which is what it appears that you have suggested. And we recognize that culture and laws change, so we don't "tie a moral compass" to something and leave it there. Otherwise we would still have slavery.