If a local community comes to a consensus that they want to observe or not observe blue laws, it is not reasonable that they should be forced to bow to the will of vocal minority. Such coercion of the majority applied broadly would lead to chaos and foolishly accomodates [sic] the wishes of the squeaky wheel at the expense of the wishes of everyone else.
If a local community comes to a consensus that they want to observe or not observe blue laws (torture everyone named Pete, ostracize every Pete, etc.) it is not reasonable that they should be forced to bow to the will of vocal minority. Such coercion of the majority applied broadly would lead to chaos and foolishly accommodates the wishes of the squeaky wheel mob at the expense of the wishes of everyone else Petes.
Pete didn't harm another person and he is an animate being. Alcohol harmed no one and is an inanimate object. You are arguing to initiate harm/force against a person that has not harmed another. To carry it out is immoral and criminal. Your individual rights end where another person's begin.
So you consider buying alchohol on a Sunday to be a civil right, a kin to not being subjected to torture?
How about some perspective. We are not talking about the majority violating the civil rights of the individual.
Should you be able to move to any community in the country and force them to change how they have chosen to live simply to accomodate your preferences?