Rights as Trumps-Dworkin

To my understanding, Dworking is explaining how there should be equality of all rights and it should not be a majority rules; because if the majority rules then the entire minority's right is being violated. He states that there is no right or privelige for one person greater or lesser to another. For example, he uses Sarah and the people that adore her; she should not receive more preferences because people ask for her to because she is such a good person. He argues that no one has greater value or greater preferences than another. He also uses the example of the Nazi's; it is not right for Nazi's to say that a Jew has less preferences or rights than an Aryan (156). This sounds a little like what Gewirth was talking about with absolute rights, to me at least. I understand it as there being no one who is more likely to receive a right or no one who is more privileged to receive a right than another. With that being said, no one has the right to infringe on someone else's right or to say that the majority has everyone's best interest in mind because no one knows what is better for the other person. This is what I understand Dworkin to be saying, but I do not fully comprehend is arguments about Hart's response to his article.