If someone is anti-dancing, they have a right to try and promote legislation that dictates that dancing should not be allowed in the environment in which they live. If someone is pro-dancing, they have just as much of a right to try and promote pro-dancing legislation.
I'm not against forcing morality upon others at the local level, I'm against forcing morality of any sort on the federal level.
Doing so on the federal level removes the choice form the local person to promote their beliefs through legislation.
I would never support an anti-dancing law, In fact I would ardently oppose such a law.
The is that by forcing people to live in an environment that they are morally opposed to, by way of federal legislation, you effectively remove their right to choose. If the nation has a pro-dancing law, then that ther is no place within that nation that allows for people to live in a dance-free environment.
If a person finds residing in a pro-dancing environment immoral, they are having the opposing morality forced upon them.
It is not simply a matter of "If you don't like X behavior, then don't engage in X behavior".
Some people legitimately feel just LIVING in an enviroment that promotes X behavior is immoral.
by removing their ability to live in an anvironment that is freee form X behavior, you in fact force them to engage in something that they find immoral.
That is forcing one's own morality upon others.
By allowing each local area to decide the matter for themselves, we in effect lessen the degree upon which morality is forced upon others.
By allowing choice, we do NOT force morality upon others, we force CHOICES upon others.
If your local area decides to ban X behavior, you are now faced with three choices:
1. Move to an area that allows X behavior.
2. Choose to say but lobby to get the local ordinances changed to allow X behavior.
3. Deal with it because you choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2.
All three are legitimate choices.
Now, the reverse is also true. If a person wants to ban X behavior, but locally X behavior is allowed they now have three choices to make:
1. Move to an area that does not allow X behavior
2. Choose to stay but lobby to get the local ordinance changed to not allow X behavior
3. Deal with it because they choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2
If this practice is adopted nationwide, and kept as local as possible, the end effect is that NOBODY, of any stripe, has ANY morality FORCED upon them. They ALL have choices that they can make.
Even if the three choices are unappealing to the person in question, the fact is that choice does exist.
To me, forcing things upon people is the removal of the ability to make some sort of choice. Morality cannot be forced upon someone if the country were to adopt, because there would always exist a choice.