I don't think it's genuine to make the argument that restricting rights is A-OK if the people who would be negatively affected are a small enough group. I'm ass

I don't think it's genuine to make the argument that restricting rights is A-OK if the people who would be negatively affected are a small enough group. I'm assuming you couldn't articulate what the "cutoff" would be even if you wanted to, and if you could I doubt you could defend it. I mean, why stop at 0.2 percent? Why not hurt even more people? Is 0.2 percent a magic number?