(July 2, 2014 at 5:53 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: That's true. But I would offer that if what troubles us is the element of coercion or compulsion then the way to approach it is to deal with element of coercion or compulsion.
The issue for me is freedom. By compelling them to NOT do something it seems to me we are impinging their freedom as much as people who would force them. That's not empowerment. That's just expecting people to do what we want instead of what some other group wants.
I am having a difficult time imagining a practical way of dealing with the coercive side of the issue. I also don't like the inherent limitation of liberty for some, but that's why the situation presents a dilemma; there are no ideal solutions. The freedom loving side of me hates admitting that I can accept limiting certain freedoms if it also means that to some extent we can mitigate the oppression of others.
Without more considered thought on the matter I can summarize my position by stating I prioritize higher someone's right to not wear identity concealing clothes before considering someone's right to wear it because we know the coercion exists. If the coercion did not exist I would explicitly agree with your conclusion regarding a law that would then only serve to limit a choice.
