- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,982
- Reaction score
- 60,542
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Exactly how I felt after reading that too.
Who says liberals and conservatives cannot agree on anything!
Exactly how I felt after reading that too.
Well aware and that right, good thing it is not infringed on by equal rights nor is is actually the right to illegally discriminate. There is no right to illegal discriminate so once again I'm not in the anti-rights camp by any means.
No you do not have that right if you're going to do business in public, in point of fact
Understand that your form of "liberty" is not the same as the law
If you sell me a knife, and one month later I use that knife to cut a steak at a gay person's house, did you participate in my dinner?
The notion that selling someone a product, which they later use in a reception following a ceremony that you disagree with, is "forcing" you to "participate" in the earlier ceremony is laughable. It's transparent. It's a blatant attempt to hide anti-gay animus behind religion.
You know it. I know it. They know it.
We all know it.
No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
Then you wont mind if I stop reading right here then. When you start with this level of ignorance, it is only bound to get worseBlah blah blah. Typical anarchist swill posing as something beginning with "L".
No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
Blah blah blah. Typical anarchist swill posing as something beginning with "L".
The rights you claim to have are determined by social contract. The social contract in this country lead to things like the equal protection of the law and the due process of the law, made applicable to the states by the 14th Amd. And I'm glad that the USSC extended this such that businesses who hold themselves to the public do not have the ability to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. I'm glad states/cities/towns have passed laws including sexual orientation in the list of things that bigots cannot discriminate on the basis of in the name of so-called "rights" or "liberty" (transparent mockeries of language).
However, I am sad that some libertarians understand neither that they are basically anarchists in their opposition to all things government, nor that "totalitarianism" describes Soviet Russia or North Korea, but not at all the United States of America***.
It is further unfortunate that libertarians, who puff themselves up on their statements about individual rights, defend the violation of the rights of others.
***which would not function as a country if so-called "libertarians" had their way.
Then you wont mind if I stop reading right here then. When you start with this level of ignorance, it is only bound to get worse
If you are incapable of attempting to convince anyone else to adopt your anarcho-libertarian views, your views aren't worth listening to. So, thank you for the retreat.
You have yet again confirmed for me that most - not all, but most - libertarians are only capable of making self-righteous declarations about what "rights" exist and then running away. Laziest ideology ever.
Freedom of religion doesn't require people to participate in activities which run counter to their religion. If you didn't want legislation like this to become necessary, you shouldn't have persecuted people for exercising their religious freedoms. Not sure what you expected. :shrug:
If you are incapable of attempting to convince anyone else to adopt your anarcho-libertarian views, your views aren't worth listening to. So, thank you for the retreat.
You have yet again confirmed for me that most - not all, but most - libertarians are only capable of making self-righteous declarations about what "rights" exist and then running away. Laziest ideology ever.
I am not Christian, but you dont sound like you are either. I am a conservative and do vote Republican, and so the institution of Marriage and Life are on my agenda and it bugs the hell out of me that idiots that say they are in my party have no idea what a very fundamental part of the party is all about.Republican Christian here. I don't give a crap about gays. Or abortion for that matter. It annoys the hell out of me that the idiots in my party let that even remotely be a factor in elections.
Would you say forcing someone to participate in a gay wedding ceremony is not a homosexual activity?I don't know where you live but in my country (USA) nobody is being forced to participate in homosexual activities against their will by equal rights.
As opposed to the secular bigots who use the 14th to allow everything and anything that they want? Your anti-religion infringements are not protected under the First Amendment and the 14th was not any more intended to be twisted in such devious ways to promote immorality.Sorry if you thought the 1st Amd was about protecting bigots who cowardly hide their bigotry behind claims of religion.
Sadly, it seems likely that there is no deity to explain to them just how wrong they are, after they die.
As opposed to the secular bigots who use the 14th to allow everything and anything that they want? .
Lol. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you know nothing about me, libertarians or well, much else, frankly. Perhaps people don't put effort forth on people like you because it isn't worth their time. Ever consider that? Whats the saying? Something about casting pearls before swine? There is no point in making a philosophical argument to people whose heads are cast in concrete.
No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
Its bigotry to force someone against their religious beliefs to do something abhorrent to them, sure it is. Its an intolerance that your side would never stand for, showing your own intolerance.It is not bigotry to stop businesses open to the public from discriminating against gay and black people.
Also, "I know you are but what am I" was dumb even in the fourth grade.
Would you say forcing someone to participate in a gay wedding ceremony is not a homosexual activity?
A gay wedding is most certainly a homosexual activity. Being forced to photograph it is participating in a ceremony that a gay marriage is, by definition, a homosexual activity. If it were a heterosexual activity, a man and a woman would be getting married. Certainly the levels of self deception are not so deep on the other side as not to be able to even register that something so fundamentally immoral to one side should be made by law suit a requirement by the other side?Nobody is forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony nor is a gay wedding a homosexual activity since weddings aren't only a homosexual activity.
Uhh...I could say the same to you. You cannot use your SSM "rights" to force people to participate in your homosexual activities against their will. If you hadn't done so, none of this would be happening. What did you expect? Did you think you could force your gay lifestyle on people and there'd be no pushback?
Oh really? Soooo, ruining a person's life and lively hood because they don't want to participate in a SSM is not forcing? Give me a break already, you are fooling nobody.Uhh...
So far as I know no one is forcing anyone into participating in anything
I literally dare you to take the following to a philosophy professor in a top-30 school (where I went and double-majored in philosophy and philosophy) and present it to them as a "philisophical argument":
:lamo
Harvard, Yale, Brandeis, Stanford, whatever. You pick. Top 30.
Get to it, Mr. Philosopher.
Oh really? Soooo, ruining a person's life and lively hood because they don't want to participate in a SSM is not forcing? Give me a break already, you are fooling nobody.
A gay wedding is most certainly a homosexual activity. Being forced to photograph it is participating in a ceremony that a gay marriage is, by definition, a homosexual activity. If it were a heterosexual activity, a man and a woman would be getting married. Certainly the levels of self deception are not so deep on the other side as not to be able to even register that something so fundamentally immoral to one side should be made by law suit a requirement by the other side?
A gay wedding is most certainly a homosexual activity. Being forced to photograph it is participating in a ceremony that a gay marriage is, by definition, a homosexual activity. If it were a heterosexual activity, a man and a woman would be getting married. Certainly the levels of self deception are not so deep on the other side as not to be able to even register that something so fundamentally immoral to one side should be made by law suit a requirement by the other side?