[webwright]

"It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought."

No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If you're pro-rape, you're a pariah, but it's not illegal just to have those beliefs. If you're pro-racism, you're going to have a hard time in most places. We don't have to respect those beliefs, and (if we feel strongly enough) we can choose not include those people in our lives (work for them, shop at their stores, etc)... But we do have to support their legal right to have/express those beliefs and (hopefully) treat them with respect rather than doubling down with hate.

Now take a belief like "we should increase the minimum wage". Are there many people that would grab their pitchfork and light their torches over that belief? Nope.

So the question is: How reprehensible is it to believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal? Is it a political issue, like minimum wage, or is it a human rights issue, like interracial marriage?

[slantyyz]

>> Is it a political issue, like minimum wage

One might argue that minimum wage is a human rights issue, especially if a full time employee on minimum wage can't afford food and shelter.

[sliverstorm]

I don't think it works like that. Last I understood, right to food & shelter is primarily a negative right, meaning nobody can deprive you of those things. Similar to right to movement- nobody is obligated to buy you a bus ticket, but outside of special circumstances nobody is allowed to stop you from buying that bus ticket.

[slantyyz]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing

[snip]

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to housing as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. It states that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[/snip]

Doesn't sound like the right to an adequate standard of living (which would include food and shelter) is a negative right to me.

[sliverstorm]

Well, that's how it is according to the UN. I'm attempting to find something more specifically about the USA- the UN's opinions are often pie-in-the-sky...

Obviously reality is more nuanced; notice the unrest of SF residents recently. Many can't afford their SF flats anymore; is that a violation of human rights? Do we need to subsidize their housing?

Clearly there is a positive aspect- Section 8 housing, anyone?- but it seems like that plays a small part in the overall "right".

[DrJokepu]

> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Actually, it means exactly that. In the United States, however, only the Congress and state legislatures are required to respect it.

[slantyyz]

I think you're talking about protected speech.

There are classes of "speech" that aren't protected, such as state secrets, uttering threats, or hate speech (in most democratic countries, at least).