Secular combination of society, government, and religion.

Secular combination of society, government, and religion.

Personal exceptions are only allowed in cases of 'tolerance'. Any cases where someone is violating the principle
of tolerance are not acceptable.
Should be allowed in cases of personal interest-not in cases of the law.
The law/government should neither respect discrimination or force cooperation with the tolerance principle.
Further consideration required concerning elements of the law/government aspect concerning discrimination-should
never enforce tolerance.

Everyone should be upheld to the standards of the government-non-discriminating and tolerating.
Not a free society, instead a corrupted idea of government setting standards for society instead
of society setting standards for government.
Power doesn't come from the government, it comes from the people.
The people decide what powers it does and doesn't have.
The government does not have the power to violate principles, morals, mores, or any social element.

Coorelation made between people with animus with 'laws of animus'-any law perceived as intolerant or discriminating
is the fault of those who are intolerant-not laws which protect the intolerant just as it does the tolerant.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/27/supreme-court-will-rule-for-gay-marriage-but-it-won-t-go-far-enough.html
"...marriage, child custody disputes, employment, housing, or any other context are properly understood as
suspect in the sense that they are highly likely to be tainted by considerations of animus, hostility,
ignorance, and prejudice."

Marriage-unification of man and woman. Has definition, has been defined, has stipulations to be honored.
-Religious institution co-opted by government in recent history to promote reproduction among other things.
Unexpected(?) effect of creating dependence of government to honor marriage with tax breaks, legal rights, etc.

Child Custody-Determined by court who is most acceptable-no definition, stiuational, discriminates based on circumstance
and the well being of those involved.
-Government role, not an institution, not defined, not an incentive.

Employment-Job offerings by companies, business, individuals. Should be allowed to discriminate based on personal
convictions, religious beliefs, etc. Should not be forced to comply with tolerance as this would violate principle,
you wouldn't want to hire a racist because it is not a reflection of something you condone-someone wouldn't hire
based on sexual orientation because you do not condone their lifestyle.
Those that would hire both the racist and the LGBT create an environment where conflicts arise.
Forcing people to hire based on such things would create a hostile work environment due to personal convictions
among employees-of which the employer would then be responsible.
If you deny the racist a job because of his racist beliefs, then that would be discrimination based on orientation.
If you deny the homosexual a job because of his sexual orientation, it's quite obvious that's discrimination based
on orientation.
Civil Society does not rely on nor require laws to create adherence to these principles.
The Civil Society will decide whether or not it condones such companies/employers.
Without the element to choose who you do and do not support, you will see a lack of engagement based on fear of
loss due to beliefs-ability to engage and compromise based on who we really are replaced by the fear and instability
of having to adhere to what others believe.
Not a decision by the majority or minority to decide-outside the realm of government is where such things lie.

Housing-obviously should be upheld to standards due to the type of service provided, also depends on type of housing,
specific individuals you're looking for to house, etc.
Funding based, type based, and definition based-far more complex than a case of discrimination or tolerance.

"...tainted by considerations of animus, hostility, ignorance, and prejudice."

Marriage-Preventing or enabling people to marry who they want is not denying a right but upholding an element of law
that should never have been enacted for marriage does not belong to government but the people.
Deciding what kind of marriages are upheld when considering incentives is entirely separate and should be what the
law decides.
It is not under animus of hostility, prejudice, or ignorance. It is rational and value defined and bound by definition.

Child Custody-

Is the driving factor of changing law, the wishes of states, not allowing difference among states or options
provided by and through that difference; is that factor marriage benefits or the social implications of marriage
and the fulfillment it provides people?
If benefits, it should be held to standards-not everyone qualifies for food stamps, tax breaks, or other benefits
provided by the state to individual, standards based parties.


Cautionary
Social Democracy