So, I'm not sure if this is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but if you meant it as a serious philosophical argument, it has some very obvious flaws. 1. Even if you posit both of your axioms (statements 1 &2) statement 3 classifies identities not actions. ie A biblically-sanctioned judge or Quranicly-sanctioned Cadi could say, "Yes. Gays and polygamists have the same rights as straight monogamists. Just like a straight man should be executed for having sex with a man, so should a gay man be executed for having sex with a man." In fact all religious systems tend to separate the action from the individual - the individual is always redeemable if they repent from sin, which is action. 2. Statement 2 is not axiomatic. Why are equal rights better than inequal rights, necessarily? I think you could posit that in a society with freedom of expression/belief with no official religion or where there are a multitude of belief systems, then equal rights for all people is NECESSARY to the public order. ie If we can't categorically endorse Christianity or Islam or atheism, than we can't treat the Christian or the Moslem or the atheist differently under law. But once you posit that a Perfect God exists, definitionally, God can endorse belief system A over belief system B and even create different ways to treat those who believe A vs. those who believe B. 3. Getting back to my first point EVERYONE agrees that certain behavior abrogates rights. Murder is punished in every society, so if a murderer is jailed or executed their rights have been violated - and that's universally justified. So the only question is who decides which behaviors are punished. 4. in statement #2 you say "more perfect". I don't think such thing exists because perfect is a binary ideal. ie if you get 100% on a test, the test is perfect. if you get 99%. 75% or 30% none of those are perfect. The best you could say is 99% is closer to perfect.

My apologies if I made this long rant and you were just being sarcastic.

Came here to post it. You win this round, @Jay New 😁

I am hopeful you are right, but it still means regular Iranians will have to suffer till November. And remember Americans generally, including most Republicans, hate war. Even those who hate the Islamic theocracy aren't very gung-ho about freeing Iran through military action. It's important to realize this because it explains why Trump always has one hand tied behind his back, and why Rubio and Graham often have to rollback overly aggressive statements. As I was explaining to someone last week - Netanyahu attacked Iran with 88% support and it went up. Trump started the war with barely 45% support and it went down. That's the serious wedge between Israel and the USA.