They don't have special rights because we have civil rights laws that protect them. The laws work both ways.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The argument on the other side of special rights is completely bogus. It's bogus because you could make exactly the same claim about racial or ethnic or religious minorities.
The rights of some must not be enjoyed by denying the rights of others. Neither can we permit states' rights at the expense of human rights.
Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights.
Those in the developing world have so few rights - we take a lot for granted in the developed world.
We can never protect the rights by only thinking about our rights. By performing the universal responsibility with a compassionate mind, you can protect your own right and that of others.
Many civil rights came about, not when they were passed into law, but because the federal government did what it should and saw them enforced.
Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.
The First Amendment rights, everybody has them.
The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights.
Human rights are not worthy of the name if they do not protect the people we don't like as well as those we do.
No opposing quotes found.