[infinite_spin]

We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights. When we say some people have those rights more than others, we destroy equality under our laws, at the very root of our system. I think it muddies the water to call these "absolute" rules, they're clearly up for interpretation, but what shouldn't be up for interpretation is their applicability to all, in "absolute". If you're going to say "rules for thee but not for me", then we view these rules in a fundamentally different way.

[smokedetector1]

Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

Children have different labor restrictions than adults.

Police have different gun access than civilians.

Businesses pay a different set of taxes than individuals.

And allowing businesses to do camera surveillance when you enter their property is in no way the same as allowing everyone to videotape each other at all times covertly and without consent. I really can't understand what process of reasoning could even get you there, besides "equal rights absolutism," which makes no sense.

[infinite_spin]

> Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

How did you arrive at this statement from "We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights"? Seems like you're making an appeal to extremes.