A democracy is a place where the majority sets the rules, an important characterstic of a democracy no doubt. But equally important, if those rules infringe on the human rights of the minority, it is no longer a democracy.

It strikes me the above line of reasoning may be a subset of a larger, more general rule.  Right now, the group whose human rights are important is the minority group.  What about cases where the human rights of the majority group are compromised?

Interestingly, the initial reaction focuses on the notion that the majority needs to be protected from themselves by some kind of legislation; and that something will typically be a positive something in a governmental role that acts as a kind of baby sitter. 

The point of the quote is that in order to protect the rights of the minority population there must be limits on what the majority can legislate.  However, take a step back and note that in order to protect the rights of the population in general there must be limits on what can legislated.  Put another way, there must be things government cannot mess with.  Or,