"If you have to break the law to make the law juSt, then so be it," added another. In short, the activists have embraced law not to defend the status quo, but rather as a tool for "disorder" and "reordering" unjust social relations
This reminds me of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his Letter From the Birmingham Jail, "An unjust law is no law at all."
It is clear that the Supreme Court is taking away rights that were previously guaranteed.
I have previously heard this argument and I've wondered who had guaranteed the rights that are now being taken away? Are they divine rights or are the rights guaranteed in another legal doctrine that the court is refusing to recognize?
Hence, they shift back and forth between the view that "I ha,,ve_ a nght to participate equally in society with any other person" and Rights _are whatever people in power say they are"
This is an interesting perspective. I think that minority groups are forced to work within the system whether they think that the law is fair or not. I'm curious what the author would think another avenue available to minority groups would be.
Ordered liberty is a majoritarian enterprise, while individual liberty is the domain of minorities.
I think they should expand on this more, and explain the difference between "ordered liberty and individual liberty. In most cases it seems like "religious liberty" on an individual level is used as a way to discriminate against minorities. Ordered liberty seems like what was used to protect discrimination against minorities. Clarification with an example would be good. It seems like the right they are seeking to protect is the right to discriminate.
The rights turn has yielded greater support for the rights to others, even disfavored groups - rightsextension - fulfilling the LCE Process
I am having some trouble understanding what the author means when they say this has led to the greater support for rights to others. Do they mean that people are pushing back on the Right wing evangelicals and their claiming of rights and then supporting groups that might have otherwise, or do they mean that what the new right has done is led to others claiming rights that weren't before. If its the latter, I think that is completely false.
but to urge for limited government and law and order.
This line seems like a complete contradiction. It seems like limited government would mean less laws and less enforcement, since the government is the entity we task with enforcing the law. They rely on government to maintain order but arguing for less government.
Evangelicals, and their Christian Right allies, have been baptized into political liberalism
I understand what this post is attempting to say, which is that Conservatives are using the personal rights philosophy of liberalism to further their cause. I think this is problematic though because they only support speech and religion that they agree with. I suspect they would protest a mosque being built in their neighborhood, while simultaneously saying they are for religious liberty.
In any event, salesmen and purchasing agents, the operating personnel, typically are unaware of what is said in the fine print on the back of the forms they use. Yet often the normal business patterns will give effect to this standardized planning
The author seems to be saying that the standard practice in manufacturing is to create and use contracts that mostly aren't read or used, even by the people who are handling them the most, but through the standard practice of business they are adhered too. In reading the introduction it sounds like these contracts are rarely legally enforced, but it is still standard practice to write them. This makes me think of how many times I have signed something or agreed without reading the fine print.