I can't speak for Dexter, of course, but what I object to is the insistence of many on the religious right that government restrict the liberty of women to choose whether or not to reproduce, or to deny homosexuals the equal protection of the law.
Abortion isn't "reproduction", it isn't a choice to not "reproduce", it is a choice to end a life already started. The choice to reproduce has already been made at that point, it is a fait accomplit. The decision is one of whether or not to end that growing and innocent life, for whatever reason, usually because it is inconvenient. The obvious and inherent danger to such policies is their extension past the gestation period, into full-blown eugenics programs to eliminate those whose "quality of life" has been adjudicated (without their input) to be below some subjective standard established by those who will not suffer the same consequences as those they choose to terminate.
This is not an objection to the views of religious conservatives that abortion is wrong, or that homosexuality is sinful. Those are legitimate positions based on religious faith and texts, and of course the Constitution guarantees religious liberty. But (some) religious conservatives want to go beyond speaking and advocating for their faith-based beliefs, and enlist the State to enforce them, often at the price of denying folks their liberty and the law's equal protection.
No one is denying anyone equal protection under the law. The objection is to the creation of special classes of individuals who have MORE rights than the general population, which gives them unequal protection under the law. You can't create privileged groups under the guise of claiming "equality" for them, either we all have the same rights or we don't.
None of us has the 'right' to murder anyone, regardless of race, creed, color, nation of origin, sexual orientation, or age--unless you're their mommy. None of us has the 'right' to assault anyone, so why are the fines and/or jail time higher if some people are assaulted versus others? You can't tell me a white boy getting jumped by four blacks, being called "white MFer" among other definitely racial epithets wasn't a "hate" crime--but it would never be prosecuted as such because crackas have fewer rights. That isn't "equal protection".
Religious folks can and should persuade others of the horrors of abortion, but when they seek to enlist the state to ban the practice, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion.
Religious folks have convinced the population of the horrors of dismembering someone with an axe, and have laws against that. Why is it so difficult to convince people of the horrors of dismembering babies in their mother with surgical implements? Why is it so 'bad' to have a law against that horror, or is it because it has been wrapped in verbiage about "reproductive rights" and "choices" rather than shown for the slaughter it is, now exceeding any other since Roe v Wade known to have been perpetrated against innocents. Even the Chinese could claim that most of those they slaughtered under Mao were "enemies of the State"--these 60,000,000 had no voice whatsoever. If someone were to leave a shredded baby in your mailbox, you'd be horrified. But it's okay if they go in the dumpster behind the clinic. Meh.
Similarly, if religious folks believe homosexuality is sinful, they should not practice it. But when they insist that the State deny homosexuals the right to marry, or to obtain housing and other goods and services on the same basis as others, they have crossed the line to advocating coercion.
As has been said, the homosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as other folks. Just because they choose not to exercise that right does not justify the creation of something else which is a patent mockery of the Sacrament of Matrimony--something which the State has no effing business in anyway. The idea that the State can be used on behalf of homosexuals to compel people who would rather not do business with them, rent to them, or otherwise cater to their whims is a violation of the right of the owner of the business to do business with whom they choose. There are plenty of people who have no moral or other compunction against providing services to others, for a fee, of course, so compelling a specific vendor to do business with people who live in a way they morally object to is indeed coercion, but by the State on behalf of those who would coerce only for the purpose of compromising the moral imperatives which the vendors have. There is no other reason, and you know it. You would create a protected class, based on abnormal behaviour, and give them special privileges over others. That isn't equal protection under the law, it's the creation of a group with more rights based on their moral perversions. That's just wrong.
@Dexter is absolutely correct - economic conservatism, or more broadly conservatism that acknowledges and protects the individual liberties and consciences of everyone from encroachment by the state, is a winning message that can and will win elections. Coercive conservatism, on the other hand, is different only in emphasis and degree from the coercive collectivism of the typical leftist.
When government shows signs of protecting the rights of the individual--even if that individual happens to coincide, morally, with the majority of Americans, doing what we ceded it the just authority to do with our consent, then it will be doing what it is supposed to do. When Government claims it is somehow looking out for the rights of individuals by compelling those individuals to comply with arbitrary decisions which strip the individual of their ability to make moral decisions and judgements for themselves, then the government has exceeded its legitimate authority and must be either reined in or changed. The Liberal justices which said it was okay to rip babies from their mother's wombs were in no wise "Conservative", nor were the judges who ruled against bakers or landowners who decided not to provide their services for "weddings" which they felt were morally wrong.
IMHO, it would be Liberating to see people with the moral fiber and intestinal fortitude to run on such issues as the Right to Life and the Right to Refuse Service as fundamental, and a distinct choice to not embrace the policies which have led to contempt for the lives and beliefs of all people. If you want the State to stand between me and my God, it will be catching Hell from both sides.
