- X group should not be considered people. They are 'subhuman', and my superior group should be able to treat them like (or worse than) animals
- X group are people, but my group is clearly superior. They have some rights, but treat them like children, don't give them important jobs, and let us make the important decisions over them.
- X group are people, and equal, but you can't make me like them. My privileges over-ride their rights. I should not be inconvenienced in any way, shape or form by them. You should not take my resources to help them - not in the form of taxes, and not in the form of legally mandated services that I must provide to them.
It's an interesting progression. Note that all stages deny they are prejudiced. At stage one, they claim they are correct, and you can't be prejudiced against the sub-human group, anymore a human could be prejudiced against dogs. At stage two, they say they are not prejudice because again, they are correct and they recognize the group is human. At stage three, they say they aren't prejudiced because they ostentatiously admit that X group are people and equal, but that is not the issue. Instead they claim their rights are the issue.
In America, racists first claimed blacks were sub-human, so you could enslave, kill, and rape them. Come the 1940's, no one would dare publicly claim it was OK to enslave, kill, or rape blacks, but they still claimed they could keep blacks from voting, going to school, drinking the same water, etc. Come the 1970's, prejudice still existed, but the defense was that they admitted equality, but insisted on the right to engage in racists business processes.
The same thing goes on with homosexuals. The worst homophobics (stage 1) claimed they were evil incarnate and that good citizens should hunt them down and kill them - preferably before they 'infect' our innocent children with their evil. At stage 2, a much more common one, they admit that gays are people worthy of a trial, as opposed to simple execute them. But they don't want them teaching their kids, because clearly they are not good enough to teach our kids (they might rape the boys - because we all know that straight teachers never rape students ) . Then there are the stage 3 people that admit gays are not sub-human, nor rape-crazed people. But still they insist that their right to practice religion means that gays can't marry.
As I have stated previously, rights are NEVER about your right to do something. Rights always limit what other people are allowed to do to you. You don't really have a right to speak, the government has a limit preventing it from punishing you for speaking (but your boss can still fire you for it.). I don't have to listen to you, I can walk away - despite your 'right to speech'.
If there is ever a question, just simplify the process and look at the core basic issues. FORGET ABOUT THE BULLSHIT. The complicated explanations people use to try and 'prove' themselves right? They are just gobbledygook to hide the prejudice - it's just used to confuse the issue. Finding a bureaucratic loophole does not let you do evil. Generally they are just people trying to exaggerate their rights beyond what they actually do. My right to practice my religion does not mean I can force it on you - even if my religion has a proselytism core.
Laws are about following the rules. But Governing is about what's fair. When some one tells you you need to follow the rules even if they are unfair, that just means the rules should be re-written. But usually that's not the case. Usually what's going is not that the rules need to be re-written. Instead, the man that says you have to follow the rules is lying about what the rules say.
The right to practice your religion never lets you put anyone else's life in danger.
The right to be alive trumps Aztec' religious rights to practice the sacred ritual removing a live heart.
Nor does it allow a government to ever put up any barriers to abortion if the mother's life is in danger.
When you try to stop women from getting insurance coverage that includes abortion, you are interfering with their rights, not exercising your religious rights.
The right to practice your religion NEVER lets you say who is allowed to marry who. It doesn't matter if one guy wants to marry another guy, a robot, an alien, a corporation, or even a car. The government might say that certain people are not eligible to marry (robot, corporation, car), but if they can get married, they can marry anyone else. The fact that they are 'redefining' the word marriage is not relevant at all (if it were true - and it isn't - see multiple examples of polygamy in the bible).
When you try to have unprotected sex without telling your partner you have aids, you are violating their rights, not exercising your own.
So when someone tries to convince you they aren't a racist, ask them to simplify their viewpoints without the explanations of "why". Because "why" is very often a "lie". Instead, talk about what. That is the thing that really matters.