ihopehefails
VIP Member
- Oct 3, 2009
- 3,384
- 228
- 83
- Banned
- #1
It is often been said that conservatives are sexest because they believe in the traditional family of mom stay at home and father go to work. I don't really agree with that but, for argument sake, lets assume this is true. Isn't it someone's right to believe as they do and isn't it someone's personal choice as to what they think is right for their own life without having the PC police telling them otherwise. The next statement liberals make is that this violates someone's rights but how is this true when most conservatives who believe in this "lifestyle choice" usually do not seek laws mandating that to happen which allows a person to execute their personal choice as they see fit over their own lives regardless if that choice is deemed morally right or wrong by others.
The claim that someone's choice of how they want to live their life somehow violates your own choice to live your life differently such as not believing a woman's place is in her home is absurd because it is impossible for someone's independent will to violate your own will of how you should live your own life.
Now I suppose it can be argued that an employer who will not hire a woman because he believes women should stay home and raise kids violates a person's own belief that they shouldn't so the remedy is a law that forces the employers to hire that woman which violates his rights to conduct his life as he wishes.
I ask, at this point, who's rights are being violated by the law? Is it the woman's or is it the employers right to decide how they want to live their life (albeit for reasons most people don't agree with). It can be argued that, without the law, that the woman's rights are being violated but were her rights being violated by any action of the law?
This is where the real root of freedom exists and that is in the absence of law and if you think that the employers has to give up his freedom to be evil then every evil thing that people can do, such as adultry, has to be made illegal. It can be done for the same reason that the woman says it is her right to be treated fairly by an employer and that is it is her right to have a non-cheating husband so now adultry is a crime just like every other evil is which is another loss of freedom because someone believed they had a right over the behaviors of others.
The claim that someone's choice of how they want to live their life somehow violates your own choice to live your life differently such as not believing a woman's place is in her home is absurd because it is impossible for someone's independent will to violate your own will of how you should live your own life.
Now I suppose it can be argued that an employer who will not hire a woman because he believes women should stay home and raise kids violates a person's own belief that they shouldn't so the remedy is a law that forces the employers to hire that woman which violates his rights to conduct his life as he wishes.
I ask, at this point, who's rights are being violated by the law? Is it the woman's or is it the employers right to decide how they want to live their life (albeit for reasons most people don't agree with). It can be argued that, without the law, that the woman's rights are being violated but were her rights being violated by any action of the law?
This is where the real root of freedom exists and that is in the absence of law and if you think that the employers has to give up his freedom to be evil then every evil thing that people can do, such as adultry, has to be made illegal. It can be done for the same reason that the woman says it is her right to be treated fairly by an employer and that is it is her right to have a non-cheating husband so now adultry is a crime just like every other evil is which is another loss of freedom because someone believed they had a right over the behaviors of others.
Last edited:
