So, you are saying that their objections have less merit?
How is that no bias?
to base our decisions on that is to show vastly greater sensitivity to their concerns that have objectively less footing in a fair legal system than the other side's concerns.
And given your premise that we should be concerned that a group resorts to violence when they feel their government is failing them, and they cannot effect the change they want by non-violent means.
A. The government refuses to discriminate, and fails the beliefs of bigots.
B. The government agrees to discriminate, and fails to recognize a group as human beings by legal standards.
Either way, the government is failing someone
But for some reason, you're more concerned about terrorism as a result of scenario A than as a result of scenario B
Even though under the pretense of being granted equal rights under a fair legal system, scenario B has objectively more legitimate grievances
Yet scenario B persisted for centuries until fairly recently, despite the pretense that a group resorts to violence when they feel their government is failing them, and they cannot effect the change they want by non-violent means.
This appears to me as a double-standard, and the only basis for this double-standard that I can understand is that one side is simply more prone to react with threat of violence when they don't get their way. I don't know how I can be more clear.
In a FAIR legal system, the rulings issued by a court on such matters represent the wishes of the majority, tempered with sobriety about the consequences of such rulings.
This is why we have things like the
Laches doctrine, et al.
This leads to a lot of "grey areas" that need exploration, which is why applicability of prior rulings is always questioned (which is a good thing.)
(Note, I mention laches not for any specific applicability, but as an example of codification of such tempered sobriety. It is very forward thinking to establish laches, because hard-nosed support of rights holder claims without it leads down very strange and terrible roads. To avoid that, is exactly why Laches exists.)
I again point you at the subjectivity or "rights", which you acknowledged previously. It is this subjectivity that allows social change in the first place-- The prevailing interpretations on what constitutes personhood (For a long time, women were not considered legal persons, for instance-- That's what the whole Women's Sufferage movement was about. More recently, arguments about limited personhood for non-human animals, such as chimpanzees and gorillas are being made. Who knows what the future holds. Maybe we will make sentient machines, and arguments about their potential personhood will be made?) are at the heart of this, as this too is very subjective. (as I just pointed out.)
What I am getting at here, is that you dont get to claim objectivity. You can't. EVERYTHING about this is subjective, and colored by the society and the culture of the people who live in it.
Since it is ALL subjective, there is no definitive qualifying reason for either side to be given extra weight. Your argument about past actions going unaddressed is rather irrational in fact-- I expect a similar kind of rhetoric to pop up some centuries from now, concerning machine rights, and how our culture was blatantly anti-machine.
(Imagine! Forcing that poor computer to simulate horrible dwarf murders in unspeakable detail like we do! The poor computers!)
We currently do not ascribe personhood to inanimate objects. (we cant even really describe, with real accuracy, what sentience *IS*.) Does that mean that hypothetically personhood endowed computers of the future should look on us with derision?