How should laws protecting our rights be written?

Extremely easy. You don't get to initiate force.

Religious rights must not be seen as license to initiate force. Civil rights must not be seen as license to initiate force. In a case where civil rights clash with religious rights, the one wanting to initiate force must lose. Christian and Amish alike have equal rights to be free of each other's initiations of force.

Literacy prevents finding a Constitutional requirement or even permission for a WALL (separation) between church (religion) and state (government).

Citing "the anti-gay Indiana 'law'" requires lying. The law simply acknowledges religious objection as grounds for challenging GOVERNMENT actions in Court. THAT IS ALL it does.

COMPELLING you to serve anyone INITIATES FORCE against you and must be forbidden. The fact you are COMPELLED to PAY FOR and "make use of taxpayer-funded services" cannot be seen as a legitimate justification to FORCE YOU to do a bureaucrat's bidding.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in fact denies any such thing as rights exist and specifies PRIVILEGES governments "must" provide certain classes at the expense of other classes.

Despite your wish to deny it, this IS a POLITICAL matter. No one is perfect, so people on the wrong side get SOME things right and people on the right side get SOME things wrong, but to claim they are comparable is simply dishonest. While not impossible, you will have a hard time citing a way CONSERVATIVE policy ever balked your day - unless you hoped to initiate force. In contrast, you will have little hope of citing a liberal policy that does not - at its core - revolve around INITIATING force by one class against another. So, each with their respective "imperfections," the fact is, conservatives protect rights while liberals replace them with class-based privileges.

The "gay wedding cake" example someone brought-up?

Easy as pie (yes, I did that on purpose.)

I do not have a RIGHT to COMPEL YOU to sell me a cake. It's as simple as that. Now, here's the shocking (to #yesEVERYdemocrat) part: My hypothetical gay twin has no such right, either. We can find someone else to do it - or we can even MAKE OUR OWN goddamned cakes - but we DO NOT have any RIGHT to COMPEL someone else to do it.

Why is that so hard for so many people to grasp?

Human rights already are written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

that became US law after WWII.

People are not wise enough to apply these rights in capitalist run America.

Humans are confused in the USA to the point where insisting upon respect for human

rights is a minority position and not a clear commitment from the state.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

No, that law is NOT an example of LEGITiMATE rights clashing.

Trying to force YOUR religious beliefs on everyone else is NOT a legitimate right, however much the American Taliban want to insist it is.

If a baker wants to provide a wedding cake service to the general public, then that's what they should do; if they do not, then they shouldn't.

It's funny, do they investigate all their customers, to make sure none of them work on the Sabbath, that all of them beat their children and slaves when the Bible says to?

Do they check everyone's sex lives to make sure no one they bake a wedding cake for has ever had extramarital sex?

The American Taliban have lost the culture war against women and gays, and are doing anything they can to keep it alive. That doesn't make their position legitimate.

Edit: "Have our way"? If you had ANY grasp of morality, you'd realize that fighting for full human rights for all humans isn't a matter of "having my way" at all. It's what's RIGHT.

Those who think ONLY their tiny group should have any rights are just in the WRONG.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution trump rights granted by Congress. Should you be able to go into a Kosher deli and demand that they make you a ham sandwich? And sue them if they don't, even though there are a dozen other restaurants in the area that sell ham sandwiches?

The First Amendment takes precedence over all other legal principles.

Religious freedom is paramount, it must not be violated by any law.

In 1993, a law was enacted to allow Native American tribes to use peyote trips as part of their religious rituals.

If their religious principles take precedence over the laws against psychoactive drug use, then Christians deserve to have the same level of protection of their religious principles.

During the Vietnam War, members of certain religions were exempted from the military draft as Conscientious Objectors. Their religious principles took precedence over the military draft.

Christians should be exempted from any law that violates their religious freedom, or that allows any person to violate their religious beliefs.

It is well established that religious principles take precedence over law. The Indiana law should be no exception.

When everyone agrees and respects those rights then it is rarely needed.

But unfortunately we have reached a place where they have to be spelled out by law.

I have the right to believe that homosexuality is the sin the Bible teaches. I have the right to not have it rubbed in my face. I have the right to disagree with homosexuality. I do not have the right to hurt anyone who is a homosexual or to cause them to not have their pursuit of happiness. Hate the sin, don't hate on the sinner.

I don't think they should be written or even said for that matter. People have free will, the end.

Liberals LC: You, like many biblical literalist rightwing extremists, are misreading or misinterpreting the meaning of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government SHALL NOT put one religion over another (we are NOT a "Christian" nation, in other words), and there shall be a WALL (separation) between church (religion) and state (government). To give political preference to fundamentalist "Christians" only is to violate the Constitution and deny EQUAL COVERAGE to persons of all other religions or to those who have chosen atheism. So-called "Christians" (by whom we can probably assume you mean whacko bird extremists who take the Bible literally only) should NOT be exempt from our nation's laws unless people of ALL FAITH CHOICES are also exempt---and this would be CHAOS.

The only rule of thumb in this regard should be RATIONAL MODERATION, which means that we each have rights so long as those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. The anti-gay Indiana "law" does infringe upon the rights of those refused service by a company that makes use of taxpayer-funded services and benefits in order to stay in business (highways, roadways, airwaves, police protection, firefighter protection, U.S. military protections, etc.).

They should make sure Cons don't have rights.