I have been paying some attention to the issue in Arizona regarding the conflicts of freedom and rights between the religious community and the LGBT community. While I theoretically understand the problem, I find the specific issue itself somewhat unclear. The nature of freedom should be that, in generic, terms, I am allowed to be me -- unless my being me infringes on the right you have to be you. What exactly is the nature of this law? What is the case whereby one being himself/herself infringes on the other being themself? And what is the case that demands this law because what is occurring is the opposite?
Of course, this law was going to fail for it wasn't really structured well -- although the underlying issue indeed has to be addressed.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
No comments:
Post a Comment