By it's very definition it's not absolute. What's progressive today, is conservative tomorrow. It's in constant change that best matches peoples of that period.

I'm unsure what you mean by "an honest approach?"

But I'm not saying that it's good absolutely. I'm saying that by most measures, it's the best we have. Anything but absolute.

No. Not absolutely speaking. Judgments made on my part are not absolute. They're my thoughts. I shouldn't have to state "I think" in front of everything I say. It should be implied.

I say it's the best we have as it's been developed through rationality and reason- developed by communities of people, tried, tested, failed, redone, refined and so on. One that doesn't actively persecute anyone by any affiliation. Of course, it's never perfect in practice - but its ideals are to never persecute anyone based on race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. It changes as we as a species evolve in thought, understanding and as a society.

I couldn't care less about the side-stepping or rhetoric part of the discussion. Or even the semantics for that matter (as that is side-stepping). I'd much prefer simple discourse on the merits of either side.

You are being deliberately obtuse now. If you could name one commonly held secular tenant that actively persecutes, by all means share it and we can discuss. But to cherrypick one sentence like a cheap political slander commercial - you're not here for discourse at all. It's sad , because I've always thought of you otherwise.

I'll reiterate something I mentioned earlier:

"Absolutism, however, states that we know what is best and anything to state otherwise is wrong out of hand"

You're illustrating this now. Laughing and mocking as opposed to discourse.

But that is not persecution, since see is not practicing religion, rather using religious arguments to NOT practice a service. Would you say that we as a society persecuted muslims if we had a restaurant that only served pork and had a customer that refused to buy any food at that restaurant (including vegetarian) since he is a muslim?

Would it be persecution if Kim Davis refused to give out marriage licenses to people who eat shrimp and was reprimanded for it? Let´s see what the scripture states:

Leviticus 11:12 - Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:9-12 - These shall ye eat of all that [are] in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
Leviticus 11:10 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:

You can believe in this as much as you want in private and have limitations on who you marry, but if you choose to do it in the name of the state, you must obey the rules. Otherwise ALL religions and beliefs of ANY kind could always claim persecution whenever a person of that conviction refuses to do something.

Okay, I understand.

She'd persecuted them by refusing them their rights. She's free to practice her beliefs but not when they do harm to others. She wasn't persecuted because of her belief, she was arrested because she enforced that belief onto others causing harm.

If we allow every religious belief of every religion to restrict what we can and cannot do, we are headed down an extraordinarily dangerous and unpredictiable road.

I think that that could potentially cause harm. I've never been excluded from something based on something inherent before so I cannot really measure it. The non-progressivists are only arrested (or whatever the law implies for the given infraction) when harm is done. Not simply for being non-progressive.

I mean, if we were to go back many decades - should we say didn't black people have other options available to them? I mean they didn't have to use those washrooms or ride on those buses, they could have played other sports or made their own teams.

So you seriously think that the government (which she is as a county clerk) should have the ability to refuse people who eat shrimp the right to marry? Wow, just... wow.

And who are you to say she didn´t cause harm? That the person she, as a governmental figure, refused didn´t feel persecuted because that persons rights felt trampled upon?

If you have a belief that doesn't allow you to do your job the perfectly standard response is firing.  Since she's an elected official she can't be fired, therefore legal ramifications are the only option.  You can't be a muslim food inspector and refuse to touch pork, you can't be a wiccan lumberjack and refuse to cut down trees, and you can't be a christian county clerk and refuse to marry people.  If you can't do your job you need to resign or your employer will do whatever they can to get you out of the way so others can do your job.  

Yes, we can agree that it is a personal thing, which is why her beliefs must be held on a personal level, not in her public profession. The moment she takes on the role as a clerk, she becomes an employee of the gay couple she refuses to serve. She therefore makes her personal beliefs their matter. Who gave her the right to make the decision what services she can provide and what services people have the right to receive?