The right is absolute, whether it's violated by any entity, or is forfit, because of one's own egregeous rights violation. The definition of absolute rights does not mean they can not be violated, they can be. Absolute rights are inherent and require justification to violate, else they are inviolate.
We are clearly operating under differing definitions of "absolute." If the right to religious exercise were absolute, human sacrifice would be a protected religious expression.
The definition of absolute rights does not mean they can not be violated, they can be.
We are clearly operating under different definitions of "absolute." If absolute rights can be violated, does the word absolute mean anything at all?
Absolute rights are inherent and require justification to violate, else they are inviolate.
Rights are inherent. That's why they're rights and not privileges. If a right can be violated with or without "justification," it'a not absolute. Your use of the phrase "absolute rights" is more accurately and more succinctly summarized as "rights."