Why do the LGBT crowd not support Gary Johnson?

[Katzndogz]

Because the LGBT believe they need rights and the Libertarians are saying already have rights!

A bit of miscommunication here--the ACLU would do well to moderate between the two camps.

And the LGBT refuses to recognize that they in fact have those rights, in favor of going begging to politicians and bureaucrats for privileges....And acting as though all that is righteous and good in America comes from Big Daddy Big Gubmint, is a guiding attitude of the American left.

Turns out that the libertarian message of self reliance and proactively claiming and asserting ones rights doesn't play well, to people who view themselves on the effect end of their lives and expect their rights to be delivered to their doorstep.

Well, actually, it seems more like the politicos are trying to legislate away the rights of the LGBT.

Like for instance, marriage. Before these "defining marriage" ammendments came about, there was no law barring two people of the same sex from getting married.

Since there was no law, it was not illegal.

That is the social libertarian view on laws applied to gay marriages.

There is no law today barring gay couples from considering themselves married. It isn't illegal. It's not illegal for any couple to shack up and say they are married. The controversy comes from whether or not agencies and institutions have to consider the couple married. In the event of a breakup, will laws protect property rights. How about inheritance rights in instances of intestate succession? The photographer who refuses to photograph a same sex couple's committment, can he do that? Can a landlord say she doesn't rent to same sex couples?

I once refused to paint the wedding portrait of a lesbian couple. To them I didn't have that right. I got sued. Fortunately I won, but on a technicality of the law. Not because I had the freedom to refuse.

 

[Oddball]

yes, that's it.

all y'all are noble martyrs to the cause.

asshats that think ayn rand is a philosopher are pretty fucking funny

Not any martyr for any cause...In fact, Rand scoffed at martyrs.

That said, if you aren't willing to show some spine, stand up and assert your rights, then you don't have any rights...Then all you're left with is supplicating to politicians and bureaucrats for some gubmint cheez.

 

[Liberty]

Obama's stance on marriage equality: leave it to the states
Romney's stance on marriage equality: supports constitutional ban
Johnson's stance on marriage equality: believes it is a civil right for everyone

Just curious.

The same reason that the vast majority of Americans don't support Glibertarians.

Right, it's because they are idiots. We have already confirmed this.

 

[jillian]

And the LGBT refuses to recognize that they in fact have those rights, in favor of going begging to politicians and bureaucrats for privileges....And acting as though all that is righteous and good in America comes from Big Daddy Big Gubmint, is a guiding attitude of the American left.

Turns out that the libertarian message of self reliance and proactively claiming and asserting ones rights doesn't play well, to people who view themselves on the effect end of their lives and expect their rights to be delivered to their doorstep.

Well, actually, it seems more like the politicos are trying to legislate away the rights of the LGBT.

Like for instance, marriage. Before these "defining marriage" ammendments came about, there was no law barring two people of the same sex from getting married.

Since there was no law, it was not illegal.

That is the social libertarian view on laws applied to gay marriages.

There is no law today barring gay couples from considering themselves married. It isn't illegal. It's not illegal for any couple to shack up and say they are married. The controversy comes from whether or not agencies and institutions have to consider the couple married. In the event of a breakup, will laws protect property rights. How about inheritance rights in instances of intestate succession? The photographer who refuses to photograph a same sex couple's committment, can he do that? Can a landlord say she doesn't rent to same sex couples?

I once refused to paint the wedding portrait of a lesbian couple. To them I didn't have that right. I got sued. Fortunately I won, but on a technicality of the law. Not because I had the freedom to refuse.

why would you descriminate like that, first of all? you've told that story before...as if it were something you're proud of. why would you be proud of being a bigot?

and 'considering' oneself married doesn't allow them the benefit of the laws that attach to that status.

so what on earth are you talking about?

 

[jillian]

yes, that's it.

all y'all are noble martyrs to the cause.

asshats that think ayn rand is a philosopher are pretty fucking funny

as a political philosopher, rand was a decent novelist.

who, of course, lived off of social security when the time came.

just sayin

 

[Ravi]

Obama's stance on marriage equality: leave it to the states
Romney's stance on marriage equality: supports constitutional ban
Johnson's stance on marriage equality: believes it is a civil right for everyone

Just curious.

The same reason that the vast majority of Americans don't support Glibertarians.

Right, it's because they are idiots. We have already confirmed this.

Nah, it's because our country wasn't formed as "every man for himself" and glibertarians are nothing but a collection of sour pusses that don't care about individual rights they happen to disagree with.

 

[Liberty]

jillian, I know English is hard but please try to focus and take the sentence one word at a time. Use a dictionary if necessary.

 

[Liberty]

The same reason that the vast majority of Americans don't support Glibertarians.

Right, it's because they are idiots. We have already confirmed this.

Nah, it's because our country wasn't formed as "every man for himself" and glibertarians are nothing but a collection of sour pusses that don't care about individual rights they happen to disagree with.

example?

 

[Ravi]

Right, it's because they are idiots. We have already confirmed this.

Nah, it's because our country wasn't formed as "every man for himself" and glibertarians are nothing but a collection of sour pusses that don't care about individual rights they happen to disagree with.

example?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/255013-why-do-the-lgbt-crowd-not-support-gary-johnson.html

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, actually, it seems more like the politicos are trying to legislate away the rights of the LGBT.

Like for instance, marriage. Before these "defining marriage" ammendments came about, there was no law barring two people of the same sex from getting married.

Since there was no law, it was not illegal.

That is the social libertarian view on laws applied to gay marriages.

There is no law today barring gay couples from considering themselves married. It isn't illegal. It's not illegal for any couple to shack up and say they are married. The controversy comes from whether or not agencies and institutions have to consider the couple married. In the event of a breakup, will laws protect property rights. How about inheritance rights in instances of intestate succession? The photographer who refuses to photograph a same sex couple's committment, can he do that? Can a landlord say she doesn't rent to same sex couples?

I once refused to paint the wedding portrait of a lesbian couple. To them I didn't have that right. I got sued. Fortunately I won, but on a technicality of the law. Not because I had the freedom to refuse.

why would you descriminate like that, first of all? you've told that story before...as if it were something you're proud of. why would you be proud of being a bigot?

and 'considering' oneself married doesn't allow them the benefit of the laws that attach to that status.

so what on earth are you talking about?

Yeah, in other words you're a bigot for not wanting to do a portrait. That's fine by me, I'd rather be considered a bigot by a third party that can fuck off, than be sued for not doing something based on a personal choice. Anyone should have every right to reject interaction peacefully with anyone for any reason.

Hell, I think jillian is a fucking retard, so there is no way I would want her legal services.

And thanks for makign the real point here with the special interest LOLberal group. They want the benefits the govt. grants those who get married, not really the marriage part itself. That's why the govt. should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the church. No perks, no inequality in perks based on rights perceptions.

 

[Liberty]

Nah, it's because our country wasn't formed as "every man for himself" and glibertarians are nothing but a collection of sour pusses that don't care about individual rights they happen to disagree with.

example?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/255013-why-do-the-lgbt-crowd-not-support-gary-johnson.html

Which individual rights do libertarians disagree with? And with whom are they disagreeing? And how is that a bad thing?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, in other words you're a bigot for not wanting to do a portrait. That's fine by me, I'd rather be considered a bigot by a third party that can fuck off, than be sued for not doing something based on a personal choice. Anyone should have every right to reject interaction peacefully with anyone for any reason.

Hell, I think jillian is a fucking retard, so there is no way I would want her legal services.

And thanks for makign the real point here with the special interest LOLberal group. They want the benefits the govt. grants those who get married, not really the marriage part itself. That's why the govt. should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the church. No perks, no inequality in perks based on rights perceptions.

The thing is that this is such fertile ground for any lawyer willing to do the groundwork and salesmanship requisite to sell the idea of not sitting around waiting for The Man to give them their "rights", and put together an affordable package of contracts, trusts and simple powers of attorney that would give GLBT couples most of the rights and legal protections that they claim to want.

But lolberals are nothing if not famous for their laziness -both intellectual and physical- cheapness and generally shitty sales skills.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, in other words you're a bigot for not wanting to do a portrait. That's fine by me, I'd rather be considered a bigot by a third party that can fuck off, than be sued for not doing something based on a personal choice. Anyone should have every right to reject interaction peacefully with anyone for any reason.

Hell, I think jillian is a fucking retard, so there is no way I would want her legal services.

And thanks for makign the real point here with the special interest LOLberal group. They want the benefits the govt. grants those who get married, not really the marriage part itself. That's why the govt. should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the church. No perks, no inequality in perks based on rights perceptions.

The thing is that this is such fertile ground for any lawyer willing to do the groundwork and salesmanship requisite to sell the idea of not sitting around waiting for The Man to give them their "rights", and put together an affordable package of contracts, trusts and simple powers of attorney that would give GLBT couples most of the rights and legal protections that they claim to want.

But lolberals are nothing if not famous for their laziness -both intellectual and physical- cheapness and generally shitty sales skills.

Such a dishonest POS. "most" is not equal, dope.

 

[Oddball]

I said "most" because nobody -regardless of their behavioral traits- is entitled to things like benefits supplied by employers, who are completely within their rights to extend those benefits to whomsoever they choose.

That aside, life ain't fair or equal...Never has been, never will be, never can be made so...A little fact of life that room-temperature IQ little children like you refuse to wrap your heads around.

 

[bodecea]

Obama's stance on marriage equality: leave it to the states
Romney's stance on marriage equality: supports constitutional ban
Johnson's stance on marriage equality: believes it is a civil right for everyone

Just curious.

I actually am very interested in him....a shame he isn't a R or D party nominee....may vote for him anyways since CA is already going Obama.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, in other words you're a bigot for not wanting to do a portrait. That's fine by me, I'd rather be considered a bigot by a third party that can fuck off, than be sued for not doing something based on a personal choice. Anyone should have every right to reject interaction peacefully with anyone for any reason.

Hell, I think jillian is a fucking retard, so there is no way I would want her legal services.

And thanks for makign the real point here with the special interest LOLberal group. They want the benefits the govt. grants those who get married, not really the marriage part itself. That's why the govt. should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the church. No perks, no inequality in perks based on rights perceptions.

The thing is that this is such fertile ground for any lawyer willing to do the groundwork and salesmanship requisite to sell the idea of not sitting around waiting for The Man to give them their "rights", and put together an affordable package of contracts, trusts and simple powers of attorney that would give GLBT couples most of the rights and legal protections that they claim to want.

But lolberals are nothing if not famous for their laziness -both intellectual and physical- cheapness and generally shitty sales skills.

No, the thing is that this is such fertile ground for any lawyer willing to do the groundwork and salesmanship requisite to sell the idea of not sitting around waiting for The Man to give them their "rights" and put together an affordable package of contracts, trusts and simple powers of attorney that would give interracial couples most of the rights and legal protections that they claim they want.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, in other words you're a bigot for not wanting to do a portrait. That's fine by me, I'd rather be considered a bigot by a third party that can fuck off, than be sued for not doing something based on a personal choice. Anyone should have every right to reject interaction peacefully with anyone for any reason.

Hell, I think jillian is a fucking retard, so there is no way I would want her legal services.

And thanks for makign the real point here with the special interest LOLberal group. They want the benefits the govt. grants those who get married, not really the marriage part itself. That's why the govt. should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the church. No perks, no inequality in perks based on rights perceptions.

The thing is that this is such fertile ground for any lawyer willing to do the groundwork and salesmanship requisite to sell the idea of not sitting around waiting for The Man to give them their "rights", and put together an affordable package of contracts, trusts and simple powers of attorney that would give GLBT couples most of the rights and legal protections that they claim to want.

But lolberals are nothing if not famous for their laziness -both intellectual and physical- cheapness and generally shitty sales skills.

Right...queers should pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to lawyers just to get a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage. That sounds fair.

Point me to the lawyer that can get my legal spouse as a legal dependent for my military retirement and SS.

 

[kaz]

Obama's stance on marriage equality: leave it to the states

What the hell are you smoking?

 

[kaz]

Right...queers should pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to lawyers just to get a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage. That sounds fair.

Right, single people should pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to lawyers just to get a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with queer sex. That sounds fair.

 

[Seawytch]

Right...queers should pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to lawyers just to get a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage. That sounds fair.

Right, single people should pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to lawyers just to get a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with queer sex. That sounds fair.

Examples?