Earlier quoted context omitted.
No GP but I think they such rights cannot be absolute because the same right can conflict with itself. Say it's the 18 century with slavery is common. The slave owners are depriving the slaves of liberty and happiness. But the deprivation of the slaves liberty brings the owners happiness. If you cannot persuade the owners to stop depriving slaves of liberty, then there two options remain. One, you respect the owners…
Simple: A man's rights end where another man's rights begin. To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Going back to the subject of marriage, my right to liberty ends where my would-be wife…
Except you've chosen to violate the owners right to happiness by attempting to place limitations on the rights that were so called inalienable. What you think the limit should be and what the slave owner thinks the limit should be differ.
Same right, but in this case brought into conflict by disagreement of interpretations.
Second, what happens when the other side refuses to stop because he believes that your interpretation is wrong? What do you do then?