Good grief, I see the skill of 'critical thought' was utterly lost on you.
Let's try the remedial version (the dumbed down version) and see if you can grasp that concept.
If I mandate that *your* religion is the law of the land, then you are forcing your religious views upon everyone in your city, district or state. Then, when the population changes to a different demographic (ie. more people who do NOT belong to your church); you will then be forced to adopt laws governing your life that are contrary to your religious views. This is wrong. This is the reason the Pilgrims took their chances on the open seas, rather than live this way in England.
If the US becomes predominately Muslim, then by your standards; they should be allowed to declare Sharia law upon everyone in that district or state. I oppose this. I instead chose to have the laws that govern us be nonreligious; based upon logic, not upon your particular faith (whatever it is - athiest, Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, ect.).
My faith has constraints upon what foods I may eat, would it be fair for my church to impose those standards upon you? No, that would be tyranny (see how that term works?).
The laws are in place to impose limits on society, such that everyone can move ahead - not exclusively people who fall into a very narrow definition (right race, creed, sex, religion, national origin and now sexual orientation).
As you summed up: The laws are in place to impose limits on society, such that everyone can move ahead - not exclusively people who fall into a very narrow definition (right race, creed, sex, religion, national origin and now sexual orientation).
Hodar, so you think what people do in their bedroom should be public business -- at least in terms of hiring? Why should "sexual orientation" be a "business" issue? And please define "sexual orientation" if you can?