I'm just not seeing the problems you are. Even when you point them out, they seem to be so artificial and going a different interpretation to what I'm saying, like your one about opinions changing. I don't see why that matters because no matter what opinion a person holds it is irrelevant to them doing their job. There is a constant "are they doing their job?" If yes, then their opinion is irrelevant. If no, then they could be fired because they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing. Do you really think a business should have a say in their employees lives outside of work? I certainly don't.
As for the other one, yes, you shouldn't be kicking people out if they are not causing a disturbance for others. If people are going to have a meeting that is not disruptive then that should be fine. I guess it depends what you mean by legitimised but I don't see why allowing someone to have a meeting says anything about agreeing with the group. The reverse is then whether you think it's okay for a restaurant to declare that there can be no gay meetings in the restaurant.
Edit: I'm not talking about US law. I am talking in general. If there is a right way of doing things then everyone should be doing it. And the right way to me is to maximise the freedom of every person to do as they will as long as it is not harming or infringing on the rights of others.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I'm just not seeing the problems you are. Even when you point them out, they seem to be so artificial and going a different interpretation to what I'm saying, like your one about opinions changing. I don't see why that matters because no matter what opinion a person holds it is irrelevant to them doing their job. There is a constant "are they doing their job?" If yes, then their opinion is irrelevant. If no, then they could be fired because they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing. Do you really think a business should have a say in their employees lives outside of work? I certainly don't.
As for the other one, yes, you shouldn't be kicking people out if they are not causing a disturbance for others. If people are going to have a meeting that is not disruptive then that should be fine. I guess it depends what you mean by legitimised but I don't see why allowing someone to have a meeting says anything about agreeing with the group. The reverse is then whether you think it's okay for a restaurant to declare that there can be no gay meetings in the restaurant.
Edit: I'm not talking about US law. I am talking in general. If there is a right way of doing things then everyone should be doing it. And the right way to me is to maximise the freedom of every person to do as they will as long as it is not harming or infringing on the rights of others.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~