conflicting "rights" is a subject that has been around since rights were codified. No one has a right to not be offended. People do have expectations of what they will encounter in public spaces. It's called civility and respect.
You mention legally proscribed correctness. You are being to vague. You must give examples in order to have a discussion.
You just clarified that yourself. Civility and Respect are no longer REQUIRED if every social interaction involving tolerance is codified. That's my point. You DONT want to push all of these hot issues towards a LEGAL resolution. Because folks will never LEARN the meaning of Tolerance and Respect....
Is every social interaction involving tolerance is codified? Who is proposing such a thing? No one I know personally, and this includes some very left progressives, want what you have suggested.
People tolerate far more than you imagine or are looking at. Without tolerance there is NO society. It is a main part of the social compact. Our social compact may be frayed, but being a student of history I know -- actually know, we have survived far worse.
We are getting close.. Only need a few dozen more protected classes. In some cases like of a black architect refusing to bid on a remodel for the Sons of Confederacy --- there will be "no protected class" -- which does not seem fair to me.. But when the unraveling of "sexual orientation" law starts to include polyamory or incestual relationships or changes in age of consent -- you will have removed a LOT of judgement and discretion from the interactions..
It's best if we DO NOT push all these to a legally prescribed resolution. It's best to realize that almost all corporations will bend to societal norms as they change. But the "closely held" business is NOT that far from removed from INDIVIDUAL discretion.. And that was recognized in the Hobby Lobby dustup. And you don't codify individual discretion. Individuals have a right to refuse association or accomodation. It's part of the judgement required to APPRECIATE what tolerance is really all about.. Why should a small biz be different?
You really want some Good ole boys seeking out black bakers to make Confederate Battle flag cakes?
Oh shucks -- it don't work that way --- does it?
What about a black architect?
Equating polygamy and incest and age with same sex is a bit much. Attraction to same sex is a sexual orientation. The others?
People say because of gay marriage polygamists are next to demand a marriage right. But how? If a marriage contract is a contract between two persons, would they argue in that contract is an amendment stating they can have multiple spouses? It's a bit far fetched. There are people who cohabitate together and that is NOT against the law. Marriage arguments are about recognition by the state.
The state has a compelling interest in familial and age restrictions on marriage. Regarding polygamy, I believe the interests are there too, but if people want multiple spouses why not? Then again, child custody, pensions, and others issues get involved: state interests
I think you're misrepresenting what the Hobby Lobby decision was about or maybe you should be clarifying it. Hobby Lobby was not accused of discriminating against customers. and many public accommodation laws protect religious institutions. Hobby Lobby was and is an interesting case and it appears many (your excluded LOL) people purposefully misrepresent what it was about
Where did you get the limit of 2 people? It's about caring and loving each other. If two couples want a polyamorous marraige -- would YOU tolerate that? What harm does it do to you? At least the issue of offspring and procreation is addressed in a "family" way..
Only point about Hobby Lobby was that it was recognized as a different type of discretion for a closely held biz to be "forced" to provide what it considers immoral for it's employees. No real skin off my back. Contraceptives are cheap. Ought to be over the counter with counseling from a registered pharmacist. PLENTY of ways to keep employees from "injury" because the boss nixes a "benefit" prescribed by a new untested law.. A benefit that was mandated BTW with a huge amount of political animous towards the exact people who might oppose it. It was a real "in your face" power play. No tolerance or respect involved.
REAL accomodation. is when we figure out how to resolve these conflicts WITHOUT major legal prescriptions.. Especially those DESIGNED to offend and FORCE compliance on certain classes.
The marriage contract. Gay couples even argued they deserved the same rights as any tow other people.
A marriage contract is not about caring and loving each other, as many people who do not care and love each other get married. There is no requirement that demands that as a litmus test.
I personally tolerate anyone's unions as they are none of my business. Polygamists asking for state recognition would be troublesome in many unique ways, uniquely different than bot same sex marriages and opposite sex marriages. Then again, I'd prefer the state get out of the marriage business and then out of the religion business.
I have no issues with people who have children outside of marriage. Any issue would be them asking me for help
Hobby lobby: a dissent said, “a decision of startling breadth.” and I agree.
The court ruled that corporations controlled by religious families cannot be required to pay for contraception coverage for their female workers. I believe that's a slippery slope, but people won't know how terrible it can be until it's too late and long settled law.
Holding: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Judgment:
Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 30, 2014. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan joined to all but Part III-C-1. Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
Lots more than contraceptives should be sold over the counter, but it's the world we live in. The minute a product injures or fails people sue. Funny how money from a law suit crosses all ideological boundaries
Laws designed to offend are rare, but often proposed
and then there was this gem:
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, emphasized the ruling’s limited scope. For starters, he said, the court ruled only that a federal religious-freedom law applied to “closely held” for-profit corporations run on religious principles. Even those corporations, he said, were unlikely to prevail if they objected to complying with other laws on religious grounds.
Just put the one you can't abide on ignore and join the discussion and let the mods otherwise handle it. I have always appreciated your insights on things even when we have butted heads and would anticipate seeing some of those here. 
