PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives Will Embrace Libertarians When Libertarians Stop Embracing Government




Brett85
02-27-2014, 12:22 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/conservatives-will-embrace-libertarians-when-libertarians-stop-embracing-government/


The latest fad in libertarian thought-leadering is asking social conservatives to relinquish their tired doctrines and past-due principles to get with the Randian program.


David Harsanyi made one of the more convincing arguments on Tuesday, defending 2016 Presidential hopeful Rand Paul’s olive branch to the devout:



Christians commit themselves to God, which, as far as I tell, doesn’t prohibit them from supporting a political philosophy that emphasizes free will over a state-ordained “morality.” No doubt, most religious Christians appreciate that our collective national political decisions and their personal moral compasses will not always be synchronized. That’s where the religious freedom comes into play. Should social conservatives “commit themselves” to a political philosophy [liberalism] that not only strives for gay equality, but one that seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections?


I murmured Amen as I scrolled down. I logged onto Twitter to get this very important piece onto the screens of my social conservative followers right away, adding a hardy “+1,” a secular, tech-friendly Amen, as a signaling device. That’s when it all went wrong.


The screen flashed with update upon update from my libertarian friends. It turns out they are quite comfortable impelling “others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections.”


“Arizona is in the midst of one of its habitual tussles over pointless and stupid legislation intended to make some portion of the population feel unwelcome,” Reason’s J.D. Tuccille said. “So Arizona lawmakers are basically just being homophobic pricks.”


Tusselle was referring to an updated state Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the Arizona legislature passed this week. The bill is designed to protect religious business owners from the types of litigation and sanction that have seen massive fines imposed upon Christian entrepreneurs for opting out of gay weddings. Tuccille is well aware of this:



They’re playing off of incidents in other states where socially conservative bakers and photographers have been penalized for turning away gay and lesbian customers (the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation). Those other states’ laws don’t apply in Arizona, so this is grandstanding. [emphasis in the original]


Anyone with passing knowledge of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) would recognize that Arizona lawmakers are not engaged in mere grandstanding. The act, which passed unanimously through the house, cleared the Senate 97-3, was endorsed by the ACLU and signed by President Bill Clinton, only applied to the federal government. States and localities had to pass their own version of the bill, in order to protect their citizens from state overreach and frivolous lawsuits. Arizona lawmakers took a pro-active approach to protecting religious freedom from litigiousness. The Reason Foundation and CATO Institute, among others, embrace the RFRA as long as it’s used to overturn Obamacare through the upcoming Hobby Lobby case. But if conservatives use the same law to seek religious protections for believers, libertarians are the first to cry “Bigot” and let slip the dogs of concern trolling.


The reaction to Arizona’s bill begs the question liberal Christian Elizabeth Stoker posed in Salon: “Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves [sic] to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?” [emphasis original]


Libertarians have not provided adequate answers. When great thinkers like Harsanyi and Paul try to, their ideological brethren undermine the bonhomie of the apologetics. Modern libertarian fusionists are too busy attacking the driest of straw men—the social conservative out to break up the party—to recognize that they should be policing their own.


Rand Paul set out to reassure social conservatives at the American Principles Project that “Libertarian and liberty doesn’t mean libertine.” He argued that the real libertarian agenda is about ensuring economic freedom and prison reform—two causes that have drawn considerable support from the religious right. But libertarian voters and candidates have made clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social conservatism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?


Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli, a socially conservative Catholic, pledged to cut taxes, roll back regulations, and reject Obamacare’s disastrous Medicaid expansion (he spearheaded the Supreme Court challenge to the law as attorney general). Sarvis, the libertarian nominee, supported abortion and gay marriage, as well as putting black boxes in cars to tax road use and implementing Obamacare. He opposed tax cuts and “strongly libertarian economics.” Naturally, libertarians put him on the ticket and turned out for him in droves. Sarvis received nearly 7 percent of the vote, Democratic crony Terry McAuliffe won by less than 3 points and libertarians got what they voted for: the former DNC chairman is expanding Medicaid.


While libertarians have demonstrated an unrelenting willingness to support candidates based solely on social liberalism, social conservatives have been the consummate team player.


Despite the wishful thinking of the Republican consulting class, big money GOP donors and libertarian puritans, social conservatism isn’t to blame for the party’s woes. A majority of young people identify as pro-life. Six out of ten Americans support banning second trimester abortion and 80 percent want to ban third trimester abortions. Voters may now support gay marriage, but they oppose “conservative economics,” a libertarian stand-in, by wider margins. While support for libertarian economics dropped among the greater population over the past several years, it grew within one group, according to Gallup. Three out of four social conservatives identified themselves as fiscal conservatives in 2013, compared to 31 percent of social moderates and 17 percent of social liberals.


The Gallup poll translates pretty well into legislative action. Sam Brownback, the much-maligned Kansas moralist, received the libertarian Club for Growth’s Defender of Economic Freedom Award in the run-up to the 2008 primary. Social conservatives topped this year’s list in the Senate, while GOP gay marriage supporters Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, and Lisa Murkowski finished 30, 31, and 44, respectively.


The general acceptance of libertarian politics by social conservatives has not stemmed the tide of condescending columns about the need for the religious right to get with the program. GOP consultants are fond of saying that the current intra-party war pits the “mathematicians,” who want to broaden the tent by embracing gay marriage, abortion, and immigration reform, against the “priests,” those superstitious puritans who hold the party back. The increasingly libertarian conservative smart set nods in agreement: no one in their Beltway circles is pro-life, so the country must be heading in that direction, too. The mathematicians forget one crucial piece of the equation: there are more than 20 million social conservatives who turn out for Republicans each election day, as well as millions of conservative-leaning blue collar whites who sat out the 2012 election. Kicking social conservatives out of the tent doesn’t make it bigger—it just means there’s more empty space.


GOP reformers are correct that social conservatives lost the debate over marriage with the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. They are right when they say that public opinion has swung too hard against proponents of traditional marriage, that opposition to gay marriage is an electoral handicap. Social conservatives are ready to lay down their arms. All they’re asking for is to keep their shields for the day a gay couple demands a church wedding, as is happening in Europe. Libertarians talk a good game about religious freedom and protecting Constitutional guarantees of religious liberty. They’re just unwilling to make good on those promises.


When Harsanyi says, “There is no conflict between political freedom and faith,” believers yawn. Libertarians treat it as revelation. Or bigoted heresy. There is no better friend to Republican fusionism than social conservatism. If libertarians don’t address their own ranks soon, it may be time for believers to live up to the no-worse-enemy half of the mantra.

Ronin Truth
02-27-2014, 12:30 PM
The author can't seem to figure out whether he is talking about Libertarians or libertarians.

Embracing government by libertarians ended long ago. (like when they each became libertarian)

Acala
02-27-2014, 12:33 PM
Yet another article that ignores the fact that the Arizona bill "solved" a problem that didn't even exist in Arizona but probably will in the future as a result of the stupid bill. In fact, in the Tucson newspaper this very morning was an editorial calling for Arizonans to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Just wait. This stunt is going to backfire in a big way.

helmuth_hubener
02-27-2014, 12:34 PM
“Arizona is in the midst of one of its habitual tussles over pointless and stupid legislation intended to make some portion of the population feel unwelcome,” Reason’s J.D. Tuccille said. “So Arizona lawmakers are basically just being homophobic pricks.”


Tusselle was referring to an updated state Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the Arizona legislature passed this week. The bill is designed to protect religious business owners from the types of litigation and sanction that have seen massive fines imposed upon Christian entrepreneurs for opting out of gay weddings.

I am very glad that the Reason / Tuccille-type wing of libertarians are no longer dominant in the movement. Instead, the movement is clearly being led by men who are very "socially conservative." Lew Rockwell, Hans Hoppe, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul -- these are good respectable men, with traditional values, living in old-fashioned family arrangements, supporting and loving their wives and children in the normal and wholesome way.

So I basically agree with where the author of the article is coming from, but I do not think there is as much of a problem as he does. The situation is pretty good vis a vis libertarians not supporting nor being libertines.

Lucille
02-27-2014, 12:39 PM
Yet another article that ignores the fact that the Arizona bill "solved" a problem that didn't even exist in Arizona but probably will in the future as a result of the stupid bill. In fact, in the Tucson newspaper this very morning was an editorial calling for Arizonans to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Just wait. This stunt is going to backfire in a big way.

I don't know how many times people have pointed that out. Even the OP's link ignores that point in Tucille's piece:


As Reason's Scott Shackford documented, "sexual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion."

Not for long.

twomp
02-27-2014, 12:39 PM
The author can't seem to figure out whether he is talking about Libertarians or libertarians.

Embracing government by libertarians ended long ago. (like when they each became libertarian)

It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

Brett85
02-27-2014, 01:01 PM
I don't know how many times people have pointed that out. Even the OP's link ignores that point in Tucille's piece:

Not for long.

Read this article. The bills in Kansas and Arizona had nothing to do with allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples who want to come in and eat. The laws were introduced in order to prevent Christians from being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/misled-arizonas-bill/#axzz2uNENlbmz

Ender
02-27-2014, 01:19 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

No, it's NOT "fking stupid".

Libertarians are the Libertarian Party; libertarians embrace a liberty-minded life style that is not necessarily political.

Philhelm
02-27-2014, 01:25 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

Domestic Terrorist?

Quark
02-27-2014, 01:33 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmZA90W53Rk

Lucille
02-27-2014, 01:34 PM
Read this article. The bills in Kansas and Arizona had nothing to do with allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples who want to come in and eat. The laws were introduced in order to prevent Christians from being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/misled-arizonas-bill/#axzz2uNENlbmz

I did, I didn't say anything about restaurants, and I know all about the bill. I live in AZ. Again, Arizonans already had (and still have) that right. Once the Ds win the majority after this stunt, they won't any more though, thanks to Republicans (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard). And when it comes up, whatever Rs are left in the legislature will probably vote like the MN clowns (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445068-Minnesota-Republican-who-voted-for-gay-marriage-retires-after-party-abandonment&p=5434497&viewfull=1#post5434497).

Ronin Truth
02-27-2014, 01:39 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

We had the name first until a group of disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives seceded from the Republican party in the early 70's and hijacked the name "libertarian" and formed their oxymoronic "Libertarian" Party (so called). It's kinda like when the socialists hijacked the name "liberal" to hide who they really were.

Same old political BS and malarkey. Let the hijackers get a new name.

Quark
02-27-2014, 01:45 PM
We had the name first until a group of disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives seceded from the Republican party in the early 70's and hijacked the name "libertarian" and formed their oxymoronic "Libertarian" Party (so called)\.

I'm not a Libertarian, but I've read many books on the formation of the party. It is deceptive and inaccurate to call the entirety of the party "disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard


mbibing Randolph Bourne's idea that "war is the health of the state", Rothbard opposed all wars in his lifetime, and engaged in anti-war activism.[37] During the 1970s and 1980s, Rothbard was active in the Libertarian Party. He was frequently involved in the party's internal politics. He was one of the founders of the Cato Institute, and "came up with the idea of naming this libertarian think tank after Cato's Letters, a powerful series of British newspaper essays by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon which played a decisive influence upon America's Founding Fathers in fomenting the Revolution." From 1978 to 1983, he was associated with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, allying himself with Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris and Williamson Evers. He opposed the "low-tax liberalism" espoused by 1980 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark and Cato Institute president Edward H Crane III. According to Charles Burris, "Rothbard and Crane became bitter rivals after disputes emerging from the 1980 LP presidential campaign of Ed Clark carried over to strategic direction and management of Cato."

The Libertarian Party is diverse enough on its own, without alluding to Republicans and Democrats for definition.

Ender
02-27-2014, 01:49 PM
I'm not a Libertarian, but I've read many books on the formation of the party. It is deceptive and inaccurate to call the entirety of the party "disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard



The Libertarian Party is diverse enough on its own, without alluding to Republicans and Democrats for definition.

The Libertarian Party was hijacked- much like the Tea Party movement.

Quark
02-27-2014, 01:50 PM
The Libertarian Party was hijacked- much like the Tea Party movement.

That is arguable, but that is not what Ronin Truth said.


seceded from the Republican party in the early 70's and hijacked the name "libertarian"

Ronin Truth
02-27-2014, 01:51 PM
I'm not a Libertarian, but I've read many books on the formation of the party. It is deceptive and inaccurate to call the entirety of the party "disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard



The Libertarian Party is diverse enough on its own, without alluding to Republicans and Democrats for definition.
I was there at the time. Where were you?

Acala
02-27-2014, 01:57 PM
Read this article. The bills in Kansas and Arizona had nothing to do with allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples who want to come in and eat. The laws were introduced in order to prevent Christians from being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/misled-arizonas-bill/#axzz2uNENlbmz

And since nobody in Arizona (where I live) could possibly have been forced to participate in a gay marriage ceremony under existing law, the bill would have had no legal effect at all. The real purpose was purely political and it backfired. It made Republicans look like bigots for no reason and has now been the stimulus for organizing a movement in the opposite direction. Brilliant.

Quark
02-27-2014, 02:08 PM
I was there at the time. Where were you?

That is a logical fallacy. Millions of other people who are alive today were also in existence in the United States at that time, are they all experts on the Libertarian Party with an authority that supersedes all others non-present? Of course you can actually make the claim that there weren't any anarchists or non conservatives in the Libertarian Party who contributed to its foundation and its early existence, and that would be false. Anyway, this is off-topic. I just wanted to point out that what you claim is not what the reality was or is of the situation. There existed variety in the Libertarian party, at some point in time, including persons whom do not fit your description.

mczerone
02-27-2014, 02:20 PM
But libertarian voters and candidates have made clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social conservatism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?

But social conservative voters and candidates have made it clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social liberalism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?


While libertarians have demonstrated an unrelenting willingness to support candidates based solely on social liberalism, social conservatives have been the consummate team player.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!



HA!

twomp
02-27-2014, 02:22 PM
No, it's NOT "fking stupid".

Libertarians are the Libertarian Party; libertarians embrace a liberty-minded life style that is not necessarily political.

Is this like some official rule written somewhere or did you make this up yourself?

Brett85
02-27-2014, 02:28 PM
I did, I didn't say anything about restaurants, and I know all about the bill. I live in AZ. Again, Arizonans already had (and still have) that right.

Then why were the gay lobby and the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail against it?

Brett85
02-27-2014, 02:31 PM
But social conservative voters and candidates have made it clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social liberalism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?

You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?

Anti-Neocon
02-27-2014, 02:31 PM
Is this like some official rule written somewhere or did you make this up yourself?
How long have you been around to have not seen this somewhere?

The specification absolutely matters. Take for instance republican, a word which has a completely different meaning when not capitalized (dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republican)). Of course, capital L "Libertarian" isn't even defined in the dictionary because the party is so irrelevant.

"Bob, a staunch Democrat, is a republican because he believes in a government run by representatives elected by the people."
"Nancy, a Libertarian, has changed her views on many topics over the years and identifies as a socialist."

NIU Students for Liberty
02-27-2014, 02:34 PM
And libertarians will embrace the Republican party when Republicans stop embracing war and meddling in peoples' private lives.

Brett85
02-27-2014, 02:38 PM
And libertarians will embrace the Republican party when Republicans stop embracing war and meddling in peoples' private lives.

I agree, but this guy said conservatives, not Republicans. True conservatives should be in favor of defensive wars only and should be in favor of defending the Bill of Rights and the privacy of the American people.

GunnyFreedom
02-27-2014, 02:44 PM
I don't know about the author of the article in the OP, but I've never met a 'libertarian' who supports the use of government force to make sellers and buyers transact business against their will.

GunnyFreedom
02-27-2014, 02:46 PM
You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?

Yeah, that worked out so well...

Acala
02-27-2014, 02:47 PM
Then why were the gay lobby and the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail against it?

Some of them were ignorant about the state of the law. Some of them saw it as an opportunity to make the Republicans look like bigots and to help excite and organize their supporters. And they were successful.

fisharmor
02-27-2014, 02:50 PM
You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?

Seriously, I got so fucking fucking fucking sick and fucking tired of fucking saying this in fucking November that I fucking left for fucking months, and you people with your complete and utter lack of facts and understanding are bringing it all back up again despite the fact that we fucking covered this.

Cuccinelli made up a special fucking website to drum up support for keeping a law on the books, which he supported while in the state senate, which he knew -KNEW - at the time would make it illegal for married couples to engage in anything other than missionary sex.

He KNEW that his law made it a felony for me to receive a blowjob from my wife.
HE KNEW THIS.

HE STILL KNOWS THIS.

Libertarians - big L or little l - didn't vote for Cuccinelli because he is the 180 degree polar opposite of libertarian.

Ron Paul got this wrong.
Rand Paul got this wrong.

Believe it or not, oh repeated and malicious invokers of the appeal to authority fallacy, it isn't the first time either of them was wrong.

Fucking deal with it already.

NIU Students for Liberty
02-27-2014, 02:57 PM
You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?

Because Ron got it right with Ronald Reagan, Lamar Smith, and Ted Cruz...

Snew
02-27-2014, 02:59 PM
Because Ron got it right with Ronald Reagan, Lamar Smith, and Ted Cruz...

Quoted. for. truth.

NIU Students for Liberty
02-27-2014, 02:59 PM
I agree, but this guy said conservatives, not Republicans. True conservatives should be in favor of defensive wars only and should be in favor of defending the Bill of Rights and the privacy of the American people.

And who makes up the Republican party? Social conservatives that are completely out of touch when it comes to social issues are responsible for making the GOP look like idiots, plain and simple. If this Arizona bill was really about maintaining that business owners have the right to dictate who they want to do business with on their own terms, gays would not have been singled out.

twomp
02-27-2014, 03:31 PM
How long have you been around to have not seen this somewhere?

The specification absolutely matters. Take for instance republican, a word which has a completely different meaning when not capitalized (dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republican)). Of course, capital L "Libertarian" isn't even defined in the dictionary because the party is so irrelevant.

"Bob, a staunch Democrat, is a republican because he believes in a government run by representatives elected by the people."
"Nancy, a Libertarian, has changed her views on many topics over the years and identifies as a socialist."

So there is no official meaning and you guys basically made this up yourselves and have decided everyone should just go along with it. That's why its fking stupid. Republican, Democrat, social conservative, liberal, progressive, constitutional conservative, classical liberal, team red, team blue, the labels you give yourself to make yourself stand out from all the rest when in reality, all those labels are pretty ways of telling people that your shit don't stink. Team Red or Team Blue, whoever is in charge, nothing changes.

How long have you been around here? Does changing your label really change anything except giving yourself a new gang sign to flash at everyone?

Brett85
02-27-2014, 04:15 PM
Seriously, I got so fucking fucking fucking sick and fucking tired of fucking saying this in fucking November that I fucking left for fucking months, and you people with your complete and utter lack of facts and understanding are bringing it all back up again despite the fact that we fucking covered this.

Cuccinelli made up a special fucking website to drum up support for keeping a law on the books, which he supported while in the state senate, which he knew -KNEW - at the time would make it illegal for married couples to engage in anything other than missionary sex.

He KNEW that his law made it a felony for me to receive a blowjob from my wife.
HE KNEW THIS.

HE STILL KNOWS THIS.

Libertarians - big L or little l - didn't vote for Cuccinelli because he is the 180 degree polar opposite of libertarian.

Ron Paul got this wrong.
Rand Paul got this wrong.

Believe it or not, oh repeated and malicious invokers of the appeal to authority fallacy, it isn't the first time either of them was wrong.

Fucking deal with it already.

Wow. You have a great day as well. :)

Brett85
02-27-2014, 04:17 PM
And who makes up the Republican party? Social conservatives that are completely out of touch when it comes to social issues are responsible for making the GOP look like idiots, plain and simple. If this Arizona bill was really about maintaining that business owners have the right to dictate who they want to do business with on their own terms, gays would not have been singled out.

From what I understand, the bill was meant to simply protect people from being forced to participate in gay weddings. It didn't have anything to do with allowing businesses to not serve gay people. The bill in Kansas specifically was limited to making sure that people wouldn't be forced to participate in ANY wedding, gay or straight.

Brett85
02-27-2014, 04:20 PM
I don't know about the author of the article in the OP, but I've never met a 'libertarian' who supports the use of government force to make sellers and buyers transact business against their will.

It at least seems like a lot of "libertarians" support these anti discrimination laws unless they can be repealed for everyone. They say that if all anti discrimination laws can't be repealed, then they should be expanded to include homosexuals, in order to treat everyone fairly.

Ender
02-27-2014, 04:22 PM
So there is no official meaning and you guys basically made this up yourselves and have decided everyone should just go along with it. That's why its fking stupid. Republican, Democrat, social conservative, liberal, progressive, constitutional conservative, classical liberal, team red, team blue, the labels you give yourself to make yourself stand out from all the rest when in reality, all those labels are pretty ways of telling people that your shit don't stink. Team Red or Team Blue, whoever is in charge, nothing changes.

How long have you been around here? Does changing your label really change anything except giving yourself a new gang sign to flash at everyone?

Ya know, it's really better to be thought ignorant than to open your mouth (or hit your keyboard) and prove it.

Anti-neocon just gave you a basic lesson in proper English and the use thereof.

Please edumacate yourself.

Czolgosz
02-27-2014, 04:23 PM
Labels limit clarity of thought.

Acala
02-27-2014, 04:24 PM
From what I understand, the bill was meant to simply protect people from being forced to participate in gay weddings.

And for about the tenth time, under Arizona law nobody could be forced to participate in a gay wedding. So that is not what the bill was about.

Acala
02-27-2014, 04:25 PM
It at least seems like a lot of "libertarians" support these anti discrimination laws unless they can be repealed for everyone. They say that if all anti discrimination laws can't be repealed, then they should be expanded to include homosexuals, in order to treat everyone fairly.

Who says that?

GunnyFreedom
02-27-2014, 04:29 PM
It at least seems like a lot of "libertarians" support these anti discrimination laws unless they can be repealed for everyone. They say that if all anti discrimination laws can't be repealed, then they should be expanded to include homosexuals, in order to treat everyone fairly.

That's like saying I have one flat tire and since I don't have a spare I'm going to let the air out of my other three tires so I can drive evenly.

cajuncocoa
02-27-2014, 04:47 PM
Seriously, I got so fucking fucking fucking sick and fucking tired of fucking saying this in fucking November that I fucking left for fucking months, and you people with your complete and utter lack of facts and understanding are bringing it all back up again despite the fact that we fucking covered this.

Cuccinelli made up a special fucking website to drum up support for keeping a law on the books, which he supported while in the state senate, which he knew -KNEW - at the time would make it illegal for married couples to engage in anything other than missionary sex.

He KNEW that his law made it a felony for me to receive a blowjob from my wife.
HE KNEW THIS.

HE STILL KNOWS THIS.

Libertarians - big L or little l - didn't vote for Cuccinelli because he is the 180 degree polar opposite of libertarian.

Ron Paul got this wrong.
Rand Paul got this wrong.

Believe it or not, oh repeated and malicious invokers of the appeal to authority fallacy, it isn't the first time either of them was wrong.

Fucking deal with it already.
THIS.

pcosmar
02-27-2014, 04:53 PM
How is anything about this libertarian?

Had it been proposed as a property rights issue,, The general right to refuse service, I could have supported it.

But not as proposed and purposed. It is nothing but naked bigotry,

Nothing libertarian at all,, so how are libertarians getting the blame for this bigoted bullshit?

and I really hope it comes back to bite the butts of those that pushed it.

Brett85
02-27-2014, 04:54 PM
And for about the tenth time, under Arizona law nobody could be forced to participate in a gay wedding. So that is not what the bill was about.

I will guarantee you that there will be times in the future where people will be forced to participate in gay weddings even when there's no state law addressing the issue. The courts have already created a right to gay marriage under the 14th amendment, which was passed to make sure slavery never occurred again. In the future they'll rule that the 14th amendment gives gay couples the right to force people to participate in their weddings. The Arizona law was meant to try to stop this from happening, but Jan Brewer has no guts and no core convictions and gave in to the pressure.

Brett85
02-27-2014, 04:56 PM
How is anything about this libertarian?

Had it been proposed as a property rights issue,, The general right to refuse service, I could have supported it.

That's at least how the bill in Kansas was written. It contained language which made it clear that no person will be forced to participate in ANY wedding, straight or gay.

pcosmar
02-27-2014, 05:09 PM
That's at least how the bill in Kansas was written. It contained language which made it clear that no person will be forced to participate in ANY wedding, straight or gay.

Why is a Bill needed?
Who was being forced to participate in weddings? (other than shotgun weddings)

Occam's Banana
02-27-2014, 05:17 PM
Then why were the gay lobby and the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail against it?

Because they realized that this bill afforded them the perfect excuse to portray those opposed to "anti-discrimination" laws as homophobic bigots - an excuse they did not have in AZ until this bill was proposed there. (IIUC, this bill did not allow people in AZ to do anything they were not already being allowed to do.)

This bill did nothing but kick a sleeping bear - and now the bear is roused and riled up. And for what?
Just to explicitly permit Arizonans to do what they were already being permitted to do?
What sense does that make?

What did supporters of this bill imagine they were going to gain by it - except an angry bear spoiling for a fight?

twomp
02-27-2014, 05:42 PM
Ya know, it's really better to be thought ignorant than to open your mouth (or hit your keyboard) and prove it.

Anti-neocon just gave you a basic lesson in proper English and the use thereof.

Please edumacate yourself.

Educate myself? How? By giving myself a stupid label because you like to limit yourself to one? If I believe in one philosophy let's say I call myself a social conservative but I am pro-choice, am I now kicked out of that label? What if I am a pro-choice Republican, will that get me kicked out of that label?

What if I am a libertarian but I don't like anyone on the GOP ticket and I vote for Gary Johnson, does that make me a Libertarian? Please enlighten me with your official rules to all this all mighty wise one.

acptulsa
02-27-2014, 06:02 PM
So there is no official meaning and you guys basically made this up yourselves and have decided everyone should just go along with it. That's why its fking stupid. Republican, Democrat, social conservative, liberal, progressive, constitutional conservative, classical liberal, team red, team blue, the labels you give yourself to make yourself stand out from all the rest when in reality, all those labels are pretty ways of telling people that your shit don't stink. Team Red or Team Blue, whoever is in charge, nothing changes.

How long have you been around here? Does changing your label really change anything except giving yourself a new gang sign to flash at everyone?

No. It doesn't. That was kind of the point. You don't have to agree with a club to join it. You could join it for camouflage, because you see an advantage in carrying the card. You could join to jack with the members. You could join as a joke. You could join on a dare.

You don't have to be libertarian to be a Libertarian. You don't have to be republican to be a Republican. Hell, as we've seen, many of them aren't. What's so damned hard to understand about that that it has you snarling and cussing?


Ya know, it's really better to be thought ignorant than to open your mouth (or hit your keyboard) and prove it.

Anti-neocon just gave you a basic lesson in proper English and the use thereof.

Please edumacate yourself.

We led the horse to water. And there the water is.


How is anything about this libertarian?

Had it been proposed as a property rights issue,, The general right to refuse service, I could have supported it.

But not as proposed and purposed. It is nothing but naked bigotry,

Nothing libertarian at all,, so how are libertarians getting the blame for this bigoted bullshit?

and I really hope it comes back to bite the butts of those that pushed it.

Speaking of people joining a club not because they belong in it, but to jack with it--or just to convince people the club is something it isn't.


I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

Tywysog Cymru
02-27-2014, 06:08 PM
Republicans aren't losing because of Social issues. They are losing because they nominate people like McCain and Romney, and call Obama "weak on Iran."

twomp
02-27-2014, 06:45 PM
No. It doesn't. That was kind of the point. You don't have to agree with a club to join it. You could join it for camouflage, because you see an advantage in carrying the card. You could join to jack with the members. You could join as a joke. You could join on a dare.

You don't have to be libertarian to be a Libertarian. You don't have to be republican to be a Republican. Hell, as we've seen, many of them aren't. What's so damned hard to understand about that that it has you snarling and cussing?


So you spew all this stuff out, yet you don't see the non-sense of giving someone a label even when the label doesn't fit them. Oh they are a libertarian not a Libertarian. Yet, in the same breath you say, well, it's possible that he could be a Libertarian who is pretending to be a libertarian.

Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

Brett85
02-27-2014, 06:47 PM
Republicans aren't losing because of Social issues. They are losing because they nominate people like McCain and Romney, and call Obama "weak on Iran."

^^^This.

Ender
02-27-2014, 06:52 PM
So you spew all this stuff out, yet you don't see the non-sense of giving someone a label even when the label doesn't fit them. Oh they are a libertarian not a Libertarian. Yet, in the same breath you say, well, it's possible that he could be a Libertarian who is pretending to be a libertarian.

Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?

Dude.

Do you realize how idiotic YOU sound? This is correct English- please get over you public education and understand how to properly use the English language.

helmuth_hubener
02-27-2014, 07:10 PM
So there is no official meaning and you guys basically made this up yourselves and have decided everyone should just go along with it. That is the nature of language, twomp. There is no such thing as "official," really, when it comes to language. It's all based on convention, which is a fancy way to say exactly what you said: people make stuff up, whatever stuff they want, and then other people go along with it. Language learning and language evolution both depend a lot on analogy -- this situation is kind of like that one, and so I'll use that convention that we use in that other situation in this one too. If the "make stuff up-er" uses this analogical reasoning, usually those he is speaking to or writing to will understand what he's saying, and if there's no existing way to express what he's expressing, it propagates and becomes a part of the language.

The libertarian-Libertarian analogy is a pretty good one. Referring to members of an organization by capitalizing them is common and well-established. A Scout is a participant in the Boy Scouts of America organization, whereas a scout is someone who is out exploring or looking for something. The stock price of Kleenex may have dropped today, whereas your kleenex was dropped onto the floor. And on. So it makes good sense to people.

It's all quite a "wild west," out of control, crazy-seeming system, language is, and yet it seems to work remarkably well. Go figure.

twomp
02-27-2014, 07:16 PM
Dude.

Do you realize how idiotic YOU sound? This is correct English- please get over you public education and understand how to properly use the English language.

I am not trying to educate anyone. YOU are with your crusade to put labels on anything and everything. It's gotten to the point where you now differentiate between the capitalization of letters. What's next? Libertarian is different from libertarian which is different from LIbertarian which is different from libertariaN? How far are you going to take this?

NIU Students for Liberty
02-27-2014, 07:21 PM
I will guarantee you that there will be times in the future where people will be forced to participate in gay weddings even when there's no state law addressing the issue. The courts have already created a right to gay marriage under the 14th amendment, which was passed to make sure slavery never occurred again. In the future they'll rule that the 14th amendment gives gay couples the right to force people to participate in their weddings. The Arizona law was meant to try to stop this from happening, but Jan Brewer has no guts and no core convictions and gave in to the pressure.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up.gif

In the states that have already legalized gay marriage, where are these gay mobs that are storming Christian churches and forcing the ministers to bear witness to their union?

Dianne
02-27-2014, 07:55 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win . by Mahatma Gandhi. May I remind everyone the Tea Party fight is seven years old... not five ...

If you wish to see joy and excitement, this is where the real tea party kicked off in 2007 in support of Ron Paul: Although movement hijacked, soon thereafter by the likes of Bachman ... this totally innocent, love for a true leader (Ron Paul), will remain in my heart forever. Save to your hard drive, because these you tube videos are now hard to find ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNiDx7qTjA Watch the video all the way through ... I was there... IRS Bachman wasn't .

Ender
02-27-2014, 08:58 PM
I am not trying to educate anyone. YOU are with your crusade to put labels on anything and everything. It's gotten to the point where you now differentiate between the capitalization of letters. What's next? Libertarian is different from libertarian which is different from LIbertarian which is different from libertariaN? How far are you going to take this?

I'm not taking it anywhere- YOU are the one complaining about usage of proper nouns and titles in relation to beliefs and ideas.

COpatriot
02-27-2014, 09:12 PM
Republicans aren't losing because of Social issues. They are losing because they nominate people like McCain and Romney, and call Obama "weak on Iran."

That's part of it, but raising the banners for the gay bashers has absolutely hurt them in elections and it will get even worse in the future. Let's say the GOP runs a Santorum-type minus the rabid warmongering. Do you really think they would win?

Feeding the Abscess
02-27-2014, 09:38 PM
The Libertarian Party was hijacked- much like the Tea Party movement.

The real drop off has occurred in the last two presidential cycles, with the hardcore element having largely left to support Ron Paul. The results have been Bob Barr and Gary Johnson (plus the pathetic crew that attempted to be the LP nominee). Until and unless the hardcore element returns to the LP, it's only going to get worse.

Lucille
02-27-2014, 09:41 PM
Republicans aren't losing because of Social issues. They are losing because they nominate people like McCain and Romney, and call Obama "weak on Iran."


^^^This.

It's both, and more.

Brett85
02-27-2014, 09:48 PM
Why is a Bill needed?
Who was being forced to participate in weddings? (other than shotgun weddings)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/22/New-Mexico-Court-Christian-Photographer-Cannot-Refuse-Gay-Marriage-Ceremony-Next-Stop-U-S-Supreme-Court
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

Feeding the Abscess
02-27-2014, 09:58 PM
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up.gif

In the states that have already legalized gay marriage, where are these gay mobs that are storming Christian churches and forcing the ministers to bear witness to their union?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Not America, obviously, but it'll probably happen here sooner or later.

William R
02-27-2014, 09:59 PM
bump for future reading

Tywysog Cymru
02-28-2014, 06:51 AM
That's part of it, but raising the banners for the gay bashers has absolutely hurt them in elections and it will get even worse in the future. Let's say the GOP runs a Santorum-type minus the rabid warmongering. Do you really think they would win?

Santorum is an extreme example, he takes his social conservatism much farther than most social conservatives. I'm talking about a candidate who simply opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. I doubt very many voters care intensely about gays getting married in other states, and those that are uncompromising on the issue, are not swing voters.

belian78
02-28-2014, 08:04 AM
Like I said before, I really wish these boards would get back to what they were created for. Supporting 1. Ending the Fed 2. Ending our preemptive foreign policy 3. Personal Liberty.

Debating this and abortion and any of the other wedge issues is just a tactic by those that would delude our conversations and keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of the real threats.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 08:17 AM
From what I understand, the bill was meant to simply protect people from being forced to participate in gay weddings.

No. It was not.

http://www.bulevoador.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/replace_Anti-Miscegenation.jpg

This is what it is..
And THIS is the reason there are marriage licenses in the first place.

klamath
02-28-2014, 08:49 AM
I will guarantee you that there will be times in the future where people will be forced to participate in gay weddings even when there's no state law addressing the issue. The courts have already created a right to gay marriage under the 14th amendment, which was passed to make sure slavery never occurred again. In the future they'll rule that the 14th amendment gives gay couples the right to force people to participate in their weddings. The Arizona law was meant to try to stop this from happening, but Jan Brewer has no guts and no core convictions and gave in to the pressure.It is NOT in the future. Ask the guy that refused to sell the wedding cake to the gay marriage. He is facing jail. People around here supported him being forced to sell.

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 08:59 AM
People around here supported him being forced to sell. What do you mean "people around here"? People in the locale where you live? Not on RPF; you don't mean that, right? Support for such a thing would be very hard to come by around "here" meaning RPF -- it would be a tiny minority opinion.

WM_in_MO
02-28-2014, 08:59 AM
The fuck, you guys are responding to this troll article?

Do we need an "internet 101" course?

klamath
02-28-2014, 09:04 AM
What do you mean "people around here"? People in the locale where you live? Not on RPF; you don't mean that, right? Support for such a thing would be very hard to come by around "here" meaning RPF -- it would be a tiny minority opinion.=people around here. Not a majority but that is not what I said. The main point is people are saying businesses are already protected but the wedding cake story proves otherwise.

compromise
02-28-2014, 09:11 AM
The GOP are losing partly because their campaign efforts aren't strong enough, both in terms of outreach and strategy. Most voters care more about that sort of stuff than actual issues.

klamath
02-28-2014, 09:12 AM
This is what prompted the AZ law. It didn't just come out of the blue.

A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to make a wedding cake for the pair last year because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge ruled Friday.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to accommodate same-sex couples or face fines and other possible penalties.



"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.

"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

The case involves Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who said Phillips refused to bake a wedding for their wedding celebration when they went to his shop in 2012. The couple was wed in Massachusetts, one of 16 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, but wanted to have a celebration of their nuptials in Colorado.
A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.


A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/7/denver-cake-shopmustsellcakestogaycouplejudgerules.html

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 09:14 AM
=people around here. Not a majority but that is not what I said. The main point is people are saying businesses are already protected but the wedding cake story proves otherwise. Got it. I don't know which posters these would be, but let us agree that they were horribly wrong.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 09:43 AM
It is NOT in the future. Ask the guy that refused to sell the wedding cake to the gay marriage. He is facing jail. People around here supported him being forced to sell.

Nope,,
It was not because he refused to sell it to them,, BUT because Of the STATED REASON for not selling it to them.

They could have given any of several other reasons (overbooked, can't deliver)

And if the issue was as simple as "the right to refuse service",, I could support that.
BUT that is not the issue,, It is about the Right to Refuse service to a particular group of people. And that is pure bigotry.

Let me ask this.
Does this allegedly religious person investigate everyone they make cakes for? It was allegedly because they don't approve of the wedding.
Do they check everyone out first? Do they sell cakes to divorced people? To people committing adultery?

What about those who are marring for the wrong reasons? (Green card,, Money)

Trying to frame this hypocrisy as a religious issue is disgusting.

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 09:52 AM
BUT that is not the issue,, It is about the Right to Refuse service to a particular group of people. And that is pure bigotry.
So let's be clear. I understand you don't support the guy's action. OK.

But does that mean that you want the power of the state to be brought to bear on him to forcibly require him to stop his bigotry?

Put another way: do you believe bigotry should be legal, or that it should be outlawed?

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 10:03 AM
So let's be clear. I understand you don't support the guy's action. OK.

But does that mean that you want the power of the state to be brought to bear on him to forcibly require him to stop his bigotry?

Put another way: do you believe bigotry should be legal, or that it should be outlawed?

I do not believe that the state should have laws in support of bigotry.

It the law was only supporting a right to refuse service.. That would be fine. This has long been common throughout the country.

I do not believe that the state should have a law allowing/condoning targeted discrimination.

in other words,,
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not the same as "We reserve the right to refuse service to Blacks" or "We refuse the right to refuse service to Gays"

That makes it targeted,, and that should be unacceptable to anyone.

I am frankly disgusted by those here that would support this bullshit.


I personally think the market should deal with him,, and his business fail as the result of NO One doing business with him.

AuH20
02-28-2014, 10:04 AM
I'm frankly sick of both sides. Not happy when when I heard some heavyweight religious based organizations tried to keep American Atheists out at CPAC. And then we have a segment of the Libertarian populace that gets weak kneed over any state oriented ploy concocted by the homosexual mafia (note I said state sponsored mafia as opposed to the homosexual individual who I have no qualms with). The ignorance is astounding all around.

klamath
02-28-2014, 10:18 AM
So let's be clear. I understand you don't support the guy's action. OK.

But does that mean that you want the power of the state to be brought to bear on him to forcibly require him to stop his bigotry?

Put another way: do you believe bigotry should be legal, or that it should be outlawed?Theres your answer. Many libertarians are quite happy to allow a police state to attack private businesses IF it is for the gay agenda.

AuH20
02-28-2014, 10:19 AM
Theres your answer. Many libertarians are quite happy to allow a police state to attack private businesses IF it is for the gay agenda.

Correct. Suckers for the gay mafia's agenda. Spineless and scared of being called anti-gay. We hear everything about the NAP until the homosexual/LGBT agenda is introduced. Then the NAP gets thrown out the window.

Christian Liberty
02-28-2014, 10:48 AM
Seriously, I got so fucking fucking fucking sick and fucking tired of fucking saying this in fucking November that I fucking left for fucking months, and you people with your complete and utter lack of facts and understanding are bringing it all back up again despite the fact that we fucking covered this.

Cuccinelli made up a special fucking website to drum up support for keeping a law on the books, which he supported while in the state senate, which he knew -KNEW - at the time would make it illegal for married couples to engage in anything other than missionary sex.

He KNEW that his law made it a felony for me to receive a blowjob from my wife.
HE KNEW THIS.

HE STILL KNOWS THIS.

Libertarians - big L or little l - didn't vote for Cuccinelli because he is the 180 degree polar opposite of libertarian.

Ron Paul got this wrong.
Rand Paul got this wrong.

Believe it or not, oh repeated and malicious invokers of the appeal to authority fallacy, it isn't the first time either of them was wrong.

Fucking deal with it already.

I've gone back and forth on this one multiple times, but ultimately, at best, Cucinelli was a lesser of evils option. He wasn't a libertarian or really even close.

I wish him luck with the NSA lawsuit, however.


And who makes up the Republican party? Social conservatives that are completely out of touch when it comes to social issues are responsible for making the GOP look like idiots, plain and simple. If this Arizona bill was really about maintaining that business owners have the right to dictate who they want to do business with on their own terms, gays would not have been singled out.

Can you imagine the political backlash against a law making it legal to discriminate against minorities? Of course I think this is because most people are immoral, but still: this isn't NECESSARILY motivated by a desire to keep some discrimination illegal. And even if it is, some cake is better than none at all;)


Wow. You have a great day as well. :)

You know, I don't like how this has been handled in general. I'm mostly indifferent personally, but the people who opposed Cuccinelli generally had good reasons for doing so. It wasn't just "He's a Republican and Savaris is a Libertarian." When I learned what Savaris really supported I completely opposed him, and I don't think anyone here still supports him. Sometimes the lesser of three evils is still bad.

I don't have any issues with those libertarians who agree with Ron, but I don't like the attitude that those who did not are somehow "opposed to liberty" or whatever. I don't think you said that (You're probably too nice to say that anyway) but I think the article in the OP flirted with saying that.

It at least seems like a lot of "libertarians" support these anti discrimination laws unless they can be repealed for everyone. They say that if all anti discrimination laws can't be repealed, then they should be expanded to include homosexuals, in order to treat everyone fairly.


I will guarantee you that there will be times in the future where people will be forced to participate in gay weddings even when there's no state law addressing the issue. The courts have already created a right to gay marriage under the 14th amendment, which was passed to make sure slavery never occurred again. In the future they'll rule that the 14th amendment gives gay couples the right to force people to participate in their weddings. The Arizona law was meant to try to stop this from happening, but Jan Brewer has no guts and no core convictions and gave in to the pressure.

So much for Republicans supporting our rights. To Jan Brewer, being able to force someone to prove they have permission to be in the county because they got a speeding ticket is the extent to which "freedom" goes. Screw her (metaphorically of course.)


Republicans aren't losing because of Social issues. They are losing because they nominate people like McCain and Romney, and call Obama "weak on Iran."

I hope so.




In the states that have already legalized gay marriage, where are these gay mobs that are storming Christian churches and forcing the ministers to bear witness to their union?

Its going to happen. Just watch and wait.

Unfortunately, it was probably inevitable since 1964. I have little to no patience to those hypocrites who are OK with that law but are complaining about this.


That's part of it, but raising the banners for the gay bashers has absolutely hurt them in elections and it will get even worse in the future. Let's say the GOP runs a Santorum-type minus the rabid warmongering. Do you really think they would win?

If the GOP ran a "Santorum" that was opposed to the national security police state and opposed to warmongering, I'd vote for him.


Santorum is an extreme example, he takes his social conservatism much farther than most social conservatives. I'm talking about a candidate who simply opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. I doubt very many voters care intensely about gays getting married in other states, and those that are uncompromising on the issue, are not swing voters.

I think this is mostly true.


Like I said before, I really wish these boards would get back to what they were created for. Supporting 1. Ending the Fed 2. Ending our preemptive foreign policy 3. Personal Liberty.

Debating this and abortion and any of the other wedge issues is just a tactic by those that would delude our conversations and keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of the real threats.

I think the debates can be helpful in order to refine our philosophy. We shouldn't "fight" over those wedge issues, but I see no issue with discussion them.


I'm frankly sick of both sides. Not happy when when I heard some heavyweight religious based organizations tried to keep American Atheists out at CPAC. And then we have a segment of the Libertarian populace that gets weak kneed over any state oriented ploy concocted by the homosexual mafia (note I said state sponsored mafia as opposed to the homosexual individual who I have no qualms with). The ignorance is astounding all around.

Atheism is the moral foundation for statism.

Ronin Truth
02-28-2014, 11:15 AM
Would someone please buy a clue for David Harsanyi? And then explain to him what a libertarian is?

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 11:16 AM
I do not believe that the state should have laws in support of bigotry. I, too, do not want the state to somehow sponsor, endorse, or subsidize bigotry.


I do not believe that the state should have a law allowing/condoning targeted discrimination. OK, well, let's be clear:

Logically, every action is either legal or illegal.
You say the state shouldn't have a law "allowing" targeted discrimination. In point of fact, they don't need to have a law allowing anything. Unless there is a law against a given act, it is allowed by default. Either way, it's the same effect either if there is no law whatsoever, or if there is an explicit statement passed saying "this is OK and allowed." Either way, the action is legal.

So, is it your position that bigotry should be illegal? That men with guns should come and point them at me and force me to comply with their demands to be non-bigotrous? And then shoot me in the head when I still refuse to comply and refuse to come quietly because I'm just ornery like that? Because I would have a big problem with that.

A really big problem.


I am frankly disgusted by those here that would support this. Support is one thing. Shoot in the head is another.

If you want to frown at me, I'm fine with that. If you want to shoot me in the head, I am less so.


I personally think the market should deal with him,, and his business fail as the result of NO One doing business with him. Now you see, this seems to contradict what you wrote above. If you want the problem to be handled by the market and not by the state, then we are in agreement at least about the proper role of the state in this matter.

So I would just ask for clarification as to what your position is on this matter. I will ask a yes or no question and ask that you answer, very simply, yes or no, so that I can be sure I understand your position:

Do you believe that I, as an obstinate bigoted cake-maker, should be legally prevented from hanging a huge neon sign in my front window saying "Gays Go Home! You're Not Welcome Here!"? Should that kind of action be outlawed by the state? Yes or no?

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 11:33 AM
I, too, do not want the state to somehow sponsor, endorse, or subsidize bigotry.


That was precisely the purpose of the Bill in question.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 11:40 AM
Do you believe that I, as an obstinate bigoted cake-maker, should be legally prevented from hang a huge neon sign in my front window saying "Gays Go Home! You're Not Welcome Here!"? Should that kind of action be outlawed by the state? Yes or no?

Nope. You should be allowed to alienate your customer base if you wish.

I would hope the few bigots that would patronize your establishment would not be near enough to pay your wage.

I think the CRA went way too far.

It should have (rightfully) overturned the Jim Crow laws. But then allowed people to make their own choices.

This proposed bill was an attempted re-institution of Jim Crow laws. (Targeting Gays rather than Blacks)

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 11:41 AM
That was precisely the purpose of the Bill in question. I really don't care about this particular piece of legislation. I know nothing about it. I had never heard of it before this thread. I'm not interested in it. I am, however, interested in your thoughts about discrimination and law. I am just wondering:

Is it your position that bigotry should be illegal? Do you believe that I, as an obstinate bigoted cake-maker, should be legally prevented from hanging a huge neon sign in my front window saying "Gays Go Home! You're Not Welcome Here!"? Should that kind of action be outlawed by the state?

Yes or no?

Brett85
02-28-2014, 11:47 AM
It is NOT in the future. Ask the guy that refused to sell the wedding cake to the gay marriage. He is facing jail. People around here supported him being forced to sell.

Yeah, and that's what the author of this article is talking about. This is an issue that libertarians should agree 100% with social conservatives on.

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 11:47 AM
Nope. You should be allowed to alienate your customer base if you wish.

I would hope the few bigots that would patronize your establishment would not be near enough to pay your wage.

I think the CRA went way too far.

It should have (rightfully) overturned the Jim Crow laws. But then allowed people to make their own choices.

This proposed bill was an attempted re-institution of Jim Crow laws. (Targeting Gays rather than Blacks)
Our posts crossed in the Aether!

I now understand your position very well, I think. I am glad I didn't jump to conclusions about it. And what's more: I agree completely. You have the right idea. You can't fix stupid. If people want to be stupid? Well, they can have at it, I guess.

Now I do not personally think that the cake-maker in Colorado was being stupid, nor that his actions were bigoted. But reasonable people can disagree about things like that. As long as we're all free to go own way and have our own beliefs, there's no conflict. As you say: Let the market sort it out.

Brett85
02-28-2014, 11:50 AM
Nope,,
It was not because he refused to sell it to them,, BUT because Of the STATED REASON for not selling it to them.

They could have given any of several other reasons (overbooked, can't deliver)

And if the issue was as simple as "the right to refuse service",, I could support that.
BUT that is not the issue,, It is about the Right to Refuse service to a particular group of people. And that is pure bigotry.

I have a hard time believing that you're any kind of a libertarian at all when you don't even support the concept of religious liberty. It's quite amazing that you and I even support the same candidate. I guess Ron Paul had a very broad spectrum of supporters.

Brett85
02-28-2014, 11:56 AM
Our posts crossed in the Aether!

I now understand your position very well, I think. I am glad I didn't jump to conclusions about it. And what's more: I agree completely. You have the right idea. You can't fix stupid. If people want to be stupid? Well, they can have at it, I guess.

Now I do not personally think that the cake-maker in Colorado was being stupid, nor that his actions were bigoted. But reasonable people can disagree about things like that. As long as we're all free to go own way and have our own beliefs, there's no conflict. As you say: Let the market sort it out.

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that he's taking the position that I mentioned earlier, which is that if we can't repeal all anti discrimination laws that affect private businesses, then in order to be "fair" we have to expand those laws to include homosexuals.

helmuth_hubener
02-28-2014, 11:56 AM
I have a hard time believing that you're any kind of a libertarian at all when you don't even support the concept of religious liberty. It's quite amazing that you and I even support the same candidate. I guess Ron Paul had a very broad spectrum of supporters. Traditional Conservative, please read pcosmar's latest post on this, #85. He clarifies all this very well. Pcosmar does support religious liberty, and very strongly in my view, because he wants to allow people to do something even that he very strongly abhors. That is a huge testament to integrity in defense of liberty, in my book. He clearly feels very strongly about this. He thinks it's disgusting and revolting that people would discriminate against homosexuals. But yet, he believes people should be allowed to do it.

That gets two thumbs up in my book. Major props to pcosmar.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 12:13 PM
I have a hard time believing that you're any kind of a libertarian at all when you don't even support the concept of religious liberty.
Religious liberty?
http://www.bulevoador.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/replace_Anti-Miscegenation.jpg

This is the "Religious Liberty" you are defending.

I find it disgusting that this is being tied to any concept of Liberty.
:(

Brett85
02-28-2014, 12:18 PM
Religious liberty? I find it disgusting that this is being tied to any concept of Liberty.
:(

Part of religious liberty is allowing people of faith to not be forced to participate in gay weddings, and that's what this bill was designed to address. Like I said, there's no reason at all for any libertarian to be opposed to this bill. This is an issue where there should be 100% agreement with libertarians and social conservatives. A Christian shouldn't be forced to participate in a gay wedding by either being forced to photograph the wedding or forced to bake and sell the cake for the wedding.

acptulsa
02-28-2014, 12:26 PM
Would someone please buy a clue for David Harsanyi? And then explain to him what a libertarian is?

A waste of effort. These people define us as they wish to. And as they wish to is any way they can which is halfway believable to Boobus and makes their attacks on us possible.

All we can do is try to educate people to the point where they know when we're being misidentified and falsely defined. And that works--for observers with some tidbit of critical thinking skills. A subset which does not include Boobus...

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 12:33 PM
Part of religious liberty is allowing people of faith to not be forced to participate in gay weddings, and that's what this bill was designed to address. .

No it is not. And stop being so blatantly dishonest.

It had nothing to do with participating in a wedding.
It was about baking a cake.. (generally served at receptions)

And refusal to so because the person was Gay,, (targeted discrimination)
They could have refused the contract to bake a cake without stating any reason at all,, but instead chose to make Gay Marriage an issue.

They were not in any way being forced to participate in the wedding.


Tell me,,, Do they personally know and approve of the weddings of all the people they make cakes for? the Divorced and Adulterous?
Do they check into the personal lives of those they make birthday cakes for?

Would you think that is admirable?

nobody's_hero
02-28-2014, 12:34 PM
Republicans aren't losing because of Social issues. They are losing because they nominate people like McCain and Romney, and call Obama "weak on Iran."

Thought I'd make this bigger so it wouldn't get over-looked. I'm gonna be blunt.

It will be a looong time before Americans ever become energized over gay/lesbian 'rights.' Recall that A&E tried to insulate itself from complaints about Phil Robertson's comments in a magazine. Duck Dynasty has a viewership in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. In comparison, A&E probably received a few hundred or maybe a thousand complaints from the LGBT community. If the vast majority of people either (A) have no opinion at all or (B) actively oppose gay 'rights', then as callous as it may seem, the relatively tiny fraction who are gay don't stand a chance—but in any case, it's not an issue that is likely to throw an election when as stated there are issues like war and taxes to confront. (Hell, it's hard enough to get Americans energized about those issues.)

acptulsa
02-28-2014, 12:38 PM
Thought I'd make this bigger so it wouldn't get over-looked.

It's true. But Republicans are being maneuvered into making mistakes like that because we aren't playing the Alliances for the GOP Primaries game well enough. We certainly haven't played that as well as Reagan did...

And we have plenty to offer these other Republican Party factions. Plenty.

Ronin Truth
02-28-2014, 01:00 PM
A waste of effort. These people define us as they wish to. And as they wish to is any way they can which is halfway believable to Boobus and makes their attacks on us possible.

All we can do is try to educate people to the point where they know when we're being misidentified and falsely defined. And that works--for observers with some tidbit of critical thinking skills. A subset which does not include Boobus...You're probably right about that. I just had a senior moment brain fart there.

Brett85
02-28-2014, 01:01 PM
No it is not. And stop being so blatantly dishonest.

It had nothing to do with participating in a wedding.
It was about baking a cake.. (generally served at receptions)

And refusal to so because the person was Gay,, (targeted discrimination)
They could have refused the contract to bake a cake without stating any reason at all,, but instead chose to make Gay Marriage an issue.

They were not in any way being forced to participate in the wedding.


Tell me,,, Do they personally know and approve of the weddings of all the people they make cakes for? the Divorced and Adulterous?
Do they check into the personal lives of those they make birthday cakes for?

Would you think that is admirable?

The reception is part of the marriage ceremonies/events. It's part of the events that occur on someone's wedding day. The person at the bakery who made the cake didn't feel comfortable making and selling a cake for a gay wedding. As a Christian, that's certainly understandable since the Bible condemns homosexuality and makes it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. The owner of a bakery should have the freedom under the 1st amendment to not be forced to provide services for a gay wedding.

AuH20
02-28-2014, 01:10 PM
Anyone notice how this story was pushed to the forefront of the news cycle as opposed to the potential disaster about to transpire in Connecticut? With right of refusal a customer can theoretically go to another establishment to receive service. If a SWAT team knocks down your door at 3 AM with rifles drawn & whisks you away for a felony based on the ludicrous notion of merely owning an inanimate object with no innate motives beyond the will of it's user, you're not going to be seen for awhile & your bank account be will most likely severely impacted. Being taken from your home and being thrown in a dark cell for an incalculable amount of time is REAL OPPRESSION. Not being served in a particular store or establishment is an INCONVENIENCE in comparison.

klamath
02-28-2014, 01:59 PM
As far as I can see the baker, the florist and the photographer Did not say no gays allowed, they said they wouldn't sell to support certain actions of gay people. That is not bigoted as some imply.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 02:21 PM
Anyone notice how this story was pushed to the forefront of the news cycle as opposed to the potential disaster about to transpire in Connecticut? With right of refusal a customer can theoretically go to another establishment to receive service. If a SWAT team knocks down your door at 3 AM with rifles drawn & whisks you away for a felony based on the ludicrous notion of merely owning an inanimate object with no innate motives beyond the will of it's user, you're not going to be seen for awhile & your bank account be will most likely severely impacted. Being taken from your home and being thrown in a dark cell for an incalculable amount of time is REAL OPPRESSION. Not being served in a particular store or establishment is an INCONVENIENCE in comparison.

It is pushed there because social controllers on both sides are pushing it.

Gays because they want the Tax breaks,,legal protections and marriage discounts that the STATE provides...

And Religious groups because they want to deny gays any kind of normalcy. but don't want to let go of the STATE provided benefits.

I would like to see state sanctioned marriage (and benefits) done away with entirely.
That would end the issue.

It is nothing but two Special interest groups fighting over state bennies. :(

Cabal
02-28-2014, 02:23 PM
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This applies to actions too, so long as they are not actions of aggression.

My problem with all of this is that it has become a war of special interests, both of which are inconsistent in their application of liberty; both of which expect me to support their liberty when they won't lift a finger for the liberty of those they 'religiously' don't agree with; both of which aren't fighting to remove the gun in the room (the State), but instead to seize control of it so that they can point it at someone else.

I'm not interested in supporting 'religious liberty' or 'homosexual liberty'. I'm only interested in supporting liberty. You want to refuse service to gays. Fine. But you better be supporting their freedom to live together, get married, have sex, and so on while you're at it. As well, you also better be supporting everyone's freedom to discriminate against anyone else, including you and yours, for whatever reason they can dream up. If you don't, you're just another inconsistent special interest, hoping the State will legislate on your behalf, and I have a difficult time caring much about your arbitrarily chosen and applied religious reservations.

Occam's Banana
02-28-2014, 05:37 PM
Part of religious liberty is allowing people of faith to not be forced to participate in gay weddings, and that's what this bill was designed to address. Like I said, there's no reason at all for any libertarian to be opposed to this bill. This is an issue where there should be 100% agreement with libertarians and social conservatives. A Christian shouldn't be forced to participate in a gay wedding by either being forced to photograph the wedding or forced to bake and sell the cake for the wedding.

None of those things were happening in Arizona. I cannot speak for Acala or others, but I suspect Acala might agree with me when I say that I do not "oppose" this bill on ideological or "libertarian" grounds - any accusations to that effect are wilfully grotesque distortions of what I and others have said.

I think this bill was foolish and very ill-advised on purely pragmatic & tactical grounds. It gained nothing for Arizonans that they did not already have and it pasted a great big "kick me" sign on Arizona's back. This bill was an open invitation for the "gay lobby" to put Arizona in its crosshairs, where said special interest previously had no particular impetus. Now it does. How is that a good thing?

(I would further add that this notion that there needs to be yet more laws just to allow people to do (or refuse to do) what they should be - and are already being - allowed to do (or refuse to do) as a matter of course is a disease. It's one of the major reasons why we're in the mess we're in to begin with.)

Tywysog Cymru
02-28-2014, 05:59 PM
Religious liberty?


This is the "Religious Liberty" you are defending.

I find it disgusting that this is being tied to any concept of Liberty.
:(

That's not about religion.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 06:12 PM
That's not about religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinism
http://www.kinism.net/


Do Not call me a Liar

I find it particularly offensive and insulting. :(

Tywysog Cymru
02-28-2014, 06:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinism
http://www.kinism.net/


Do Not call me a Liar

I find it particularly offensive and insulting. :(

That poster wasn't about religion. I've never met any Kinists and I doubt there are very many of them.

pcosmar
02-28-2014, 06:50 PM
That poster wasn't about religion. I've never met any Kinists and I doubt there are very many of them.
Yes,, it was. It was also the reason for licensing marriage in the first place.

I have met and argued with a great many White Supremacists. A great many use "religious" arguments.(twisted beyond recognition)

Eugenics is a particularly ugly and twisted religion,, an offshoot of Humanism.

There are many religious arguments that attempt to justify racism. The founder of Planned Parenthood was one of the more well known Eugenics evangelists.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christian-eugenics-anathema-sit/



http://creation.com/hooray-for-eugenics
In 1912, the Rev. Walter Sumner, Dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul in Chicago, required that couples wanting to be married in the cathedral must produce a eugenics health certificate. A physician had to attest that they were ‘normal physically and mentally, and have neither an incurable nor communicable disease.’ Some denominations approved and copied this procedure; others e.g. some Presbyterians, did not. Catholics mostly did not, as they regarded marriage as a sacrament to be regulated only by the church. In 1926, hundreds of preachers took part in a ‘eugenics sermon contest’ sponsored by the American Eugenics Society. Rosen comments, ‘In eugenics, these men found a faith stronger than their Christianity, fulfilling Francis Galton’s hopes of replacing religion with eugenics.’

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=32&search=&matches=

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-28-2014, 08:55 PM
Take a look at the general writs that came out of the Virginia House of Burgessess while Jefferson, Henry, and Madison were dominant. You think they framed their legislation around the contemporary moray's of their time? No, they framed their eloquence based on property rights, and such liberties as derived from them. I generally oppose most 'legislation' which singles out particular issues, doesn't address the foundational rational, and is used for personal animus. The bill in AZ is pretty spot on with the latter. If these people truly cared for liberties and property rights, they would have worded said legislation to make it clear, but they didn't. /shrug

euphemia
02-28-2014, 09:15 PM
But does that mean that you want the power of the state to be brought to bear on him to forcibly require him to stop his bigotry?

And this is the point, really. Personal liberty means that people are free to think whatever they want to think. It also means that someone else's right to think and believe is respected. If the power of the state is brought to bear to force actions that go beyond tolerance to force celebration, then the power of the state can be brought to bear to force compliance on any social or economic issue. Personal liberty means the state does not decide what I should think, rather, I take responsibility for my own words and actions.

compromise
03-01-2014, 02:42 AM
This law should have been passed. Disappointing that Brewer vetoed it.

pcosmar
03-01-2014, 06:46 AM
If these people truly cared for liberties and property rights, they would have worded said legislation to make it clear, but they didn't. /shrug

No they didn't.
Had it been simply a property rights issue,, the right to refuse service,, I could have supported it.

But they didn't. They made it about bigotry, under the guise of "Religious Freedom".

And I say guise.. because the Dumb fuck at the center of this wants to make an issue of gay marriage..

BUT will gladly make cakes for a DOG Wedding. :(

Just another piece of shit hypocrite.

euphemia
03-08-2014, 12:12 AM
Hypocrisy is when one claims to believe in personal liberty and then calls people vulgar names when they actually take a position based on their own personal beliefs. Why is it that only some people are allowed to act on the basis of what they believe? Sounds like a little discrimination against people of faith is going on here.

This is why the message of libertarianism is not gaining traction and we are going to lose. Again. Those who claim to believe it cannot practice it.

Feeding the Abscess
03-08-2014, 04:10 AM
Hypocrisy is when one claims to believe in personal liberty and then calls people vulgar names when they actually take a position based on their own personal beliefs. Why is it that only some people are allowed to act on the basis of what they believe? Sounds like a little discrimination against people of faith is going on here.

This is why the message of libertarianism is not gaining traction and we are going to lose. Again. Those who claim to believe it cannot practice it.

Sorry, opposing this specific bill is not hypocritical for libertarians any more than opposing a bill that singled out blacks for discrimination would be.

Discrimination of blacks is part of private property advocacy.

Discrimination of gays is part of private property advocacy.

Using the political process is not part of private property advocacy.

The hypocrites are the ones who wish to violate private property in some inane attempt to protect property - as Bush said, he had to violate his free market principles in order to save the free market. He rightfully received derision. Anyone advocating lame, legally unnecessary and piecemeal property issues should receive the same treatment.

Voluntarist
03-08-2014, 09:22 AM
xxxxx

Brett85
03-08-2014, 09:59 AM
Hypocrisy is when one claims to believe in personal liberty and then calls people vulgar names when they actually take a position based on their own personal beliefs. Why is it that only some people are allowed to act on the basis of what they believe? Sounds like a little discrimination against people of faith is going on here.

This is why the message of libertarianism is not gaining traction and we are going to lose. Again. Those who claim to believe it cannot practice it.

I agree. A lot of times those who claim to be libertarians are actually less libertarian than conservatives.

klamath
03-08-2014, 10:20 AM
This is simply a choice between local laws passed by the locals or default federal CRA law enforced thought the courts. While I strongly support the CRA stopping local governments from denying individuals their bill of rights protections I do not support it taking the bill of rights protections from other individuals under the name of giving it to others depending on whether those others are the favorite status class at that time.

Tywysog Cymru
03-08-2014, 12:08 PM
I agree. A lot of times those who claim to be libertarians are actually less libertarian than conservatives.

Yeah, and people outside of the Liberty movement can't understand that. People on the left think that Gary Johnson is more Libertarian than Ron Paul.

pcosmar
03-08-2014, 12:18 PM
The reception is part of the marriage ceremonies/events. It's part of the events that occur on someone's wedding day. The person at the bakery who made the cake didn't feel comfortable making and selling a cake for a gay wedding. As a Christian, that's certainly understandable since the Bible condemns homosexuality and makes it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. The owner of a bakery should have the freedom under the 1st amendment to not be forced to provide services for a gay wedding.

You do realize (or maybe you don't) that the same bakery owner was quite willing to bake a Cake for a Dog Wedding.

Please,,if you can,, explain to me the the sacred place of Dog Weddings.

:(

Voluntarist
03-08-2014, 04:05 PM
xxxxx

pcosmar
03-08-2014, 04:22 PM
It seemed too far fetched, so I had to look it up (https://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief-lgbt-rights/wedding-cake-fido-fluffy-not-dave-charlie)

Good for you. ;)

cuz I hate being called a liar.

almost as mush as I hate hypocrisy.

Voluntarist
03-08-2014, 04:57 PM
xxxxx

mad cow
03-08-2014, 05:05 PM
It seemed too far fetched, so I had to look it up (https://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief-lgbt-rights/wedding-cake-fido-fluffy-not-dave-charlie)

Dogs and Cats on the other hand...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

euphemia
03-08-2014, 10:42 PM
Sorry, opposing this specific bill is not hypocritical for libertarians any more than opposing a bill that singled out blacks for discrimination would be.

Discrimination of blacks is part of private property advocacy.

Discrimination of gays is part of private property advocacy.

Using the political process is not part of private property advocacy.

The hypocrites are the ones who wish to violate private property in some inane attempt to protect property - as Bush said, he had to violate his free market principles in order to save the free market. He rightfully received derision. Anyone advocating lame, legally unnecessary and piecemeal property issues should receive the same treatment.

You are missing the point. The point is that people of faith are disrespected by people on this board who supposedly stand for personal liberty. Have a logical discussion without all the name calling.

euphemia
03-08-2014, 10:46 PM
I really don't care about this particular piece of legislation. I know nothing about it. I had never heard of it before this thread. I'm not interested in it. I am, however, interested in your thoughts about discrimination and law. I am just wondering:

Is it your position that bigotry should be illegal? Do you believe that I, as an obstinate bigoted cake-maker, should be legally prevented from hanging a huge neon sign in my front window saying "Gays Go Home! You're Not Welcome Here!"? Should that kind of action be outlawed by the state?

Yes or no?

I will ask you a question: Whose rights trump whose? When there is a conflict between the free exercise of faith of one and the private behavior of the other, who wins?

Answer wrongly and you discriminate against a constitutional protection.

LibertyEagle
03-08-2014, 10:49 PM
You do realize (or maybe you don't) that the same bakery owner was quite willing to bake a Cake for a Dog Wedding.

Please,,if you can,, explain to me the the sacred place of Dog Weddings.

:(
As the owner of the bakery, shouldn't they have the right to decide who or what they bake a cake for?

Brett85
03-08-2014, 11:01 PM
Please,,if you can,, explain to me the the sacred place of Dog Weddings.

:(

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. Still, it should be their right to deny service to whoever they want to.

Feeding the Abscess
03-08-2014, 11:07 PM
As the owner of the bakery, shouldn't they have the right to decide who or what they bake a cake for?

How many times does he have to say, in this thread, that they should have that right? He's rebutting the owners' claim of upholding the biblical definition of marriage as their reason for rejecting the gay couple by showing they're willing to go against their beloved definition in other areas.

Cabal
03-08-2014, 11:08 PM
I'd have more respect for the 'faith position' if yall would just stop being intellectually dishonest, and called it what it was: discrimination. I don't really care about your, or anyone else's reasons excuses, as the end result is the same, regardless. Throwing 'faith' in front of it doesn't change what it is. And for the record, it's well within an individual's right to discriminate according to their preferences, where their own property is concerned, so long as that discrimination does not translate into initiation of violence. Even if I do personally find this sort of discrimination entirely ignorant.

Christian Liberty
03-08-2014, 11:14 PM
I'd have more respect for the 'faith position' if yall would just stop being intellectually dishonest, and called it what it was: discrimination. I don't really care about your, or anyone else's reasons excuses, as the end result is the same, regardless. Throwing 'faith' in front of it doesn't change what it is. And for the record, it's well within an individual's right to discriminate according to their preferences, where their own property is concerned, so long as that discrimination does not translate into initiation of violence. Even if I do personally find this sort of discrimination entirely ignorant.

I agree with you that its discrimination. I happen to think its justified in certain instances (ie. baking a wedding cake for "Adam and Steve") but yeah, its still discrimination.

But... outside of this forum, most people have had the term "discrimination" demonized in their minds. When they hear "discrimination" they think "Jim Crow." Hence the problem.

PaulConventionWV
03-08-2014, 11:19 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

The thought crossed my mind as well. I understand what he's saying, but that distinction does irk me somewhat.

euphemia
03-08-2014, 11:30 PM
I think a dog wedding would fall into the same category as a princess party. It's pretend. And for the record: People are just a little too into their pets.

A wedding of actual humans should be treated with much more respect. Frankly, the couple should choose vendors who respect and celebrate the occasion as much as they do.

Either way, the state does not have the power to prohibit the free exercise of religion. It's the law. If the state can force someone to go against their faith to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then it can also force people to celebrate the traditions of religion. A strident atheist could then be forced to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah or a church celebration.

It's cake. Nobody was saying the wedding couldn't happen, or that they couldn't have cake. One baker thought it was a good idea for someone else to bake the cake.

In this case, it's the market that determines whether this is a good decision, not the state.

PaulConventionWV
03-08-2014, 11:30 PM
I'd have more respect for the 'faith position' if yall would just stop being intellectually dishonest, and called it what it was: discrimination. I don't really care about your, or anyone else's reasons excuses, as the end result is the same, regardless. Throwing 'faith' in front of it doesn't change what it is. And for the record, it's well within an individual's right to discriminate according to their preferences, where their own property is concerned, so long as that discrimination does not translate into initiation of violence. Even if I do personally find this sort of discrimination entirely ignorant.

You act as if my face is supposed to contort into the scream painting when I see that word.

Voluntarist
03-08-2014, 11:32 PM
xxxxx

Cabal
03-08-2014, 11:37 PM
You act as if my face is supposed to contort into the scream painting when I see that word.

What, discrimination? How's that? I just defended the right to discriminate. You're not making any sense.

euphemia
03-09-2014, 12:18 AM
Yes, they should be able to deny service to whomever they want to. For that, they don't need a new law to protect their religious liberty - because it's not a religious liberty issue (as illustrated by the dog marriage participation). It's just flat out ad-hoc discrimination. The way to allow people to freely discriminate and freely associate is to (1) do away with the anti-discrimination laws; or, in lieu of that, (2) ensure that discrimination is allowed to work both ways in any new legislation passed. What reception would either of those approaches receive in the religious community backing the bakery legislation?

It's their risk to take.

pcosmar
03-09-2014, 06:31 AM
As the owner of the bakery, shouldn't they have the right to decide who or what they bake a cake for?

Yes,, and if the Bill proposed had addressed that I could have supported it.

That was not how it was worded nor was that it's intent.

The bill was for Religious Freedom to specifically target Gays .
For "religious" reasons.:rolleyes:

Bullshit Bill based on Bullshit.. Rewrite it as a blanket bill that guarantees property rights,,The right to refuse service.

That is not how it was written ,was not the reason it was written and that was not the purpose it was written for.

euphemia
03-09-2014, 05:03 PM
Sounds like you want to discriminate against an already Constitutionally protected freedom. There is no need for another law because free exercise is already the law.

As the thread title says, libertarians have got to stop embracing government. They way you talk, you want the government to take away people's right to think and make decisions based on their faith traditions.

NIU Students for Liberty
03-09-2014, 07:26 PM
As the thread title says, libertarians have got to stop embracing government.

Really, then who was behind the Arizona bill, libertarians or conservatives?

euphemia
03-09-2014, 07:43 PM
Really, then who was behind the Arizona bill, libertarians or conservatives?

You mean what the framers of the bill call themselves, or what they really are?

helmuth_hubener
03-10-2014, 08:02 AM
I will ask you a question: Whose rights trump whose? When there is a conflict between the free exercise of faith of one and the private behavior of the other, who wins?

Answer wrongly and you discriminate against a constitutional protection. The exercise of faith is a private behavior. Or it's a behavior, anyway, undertaken by a private individual (I don't mean to say that the behavior may not be public in the sense of being high-profile and visible).

I guess I don't see any conflict. I may not understand what you're saying. Perhaps give an example?

kcchiefs6465
03-10-2014, 08:21 AM
You mean what the framers of the bill call themselves, or what they really are?
This is ironic that you would say this after you say, "libertarians have got to stop embracing government."

What do you mean? You mean what people call themselves, or what they really are?

Furthermore I don't understand your problem at all. Yes, people have the right to associate or disassociate with whomever they so see fit for whatever reason they so see fit. This applies equally to a satanist or Christian or _____. What does religion have to do with very basic rights?

WM_in_MO
03-10-2014, 08:34 AM
Thread title should be flipped.

No real libertarian embraces government, at best they tolerate it til it can be replaced.

Carson
04-10-2014, 06:17 PM
http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/morestuff/Random-witty-humorous-pics1.jpg

GunnyFreedom
04-10-2014, 06:22 PM
Conservatives will embrace libertarians when libertarians embrace conservatives. It's actually kind of a law of nature...