Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[lake avenue]

You're really just a ******* idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no ******* libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

 

[dblack]

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

While I agree with much you've said up until now, I do have to point out that this is a fulfillment of Godwin s Law and you've automatically thrown the argument by invoking it.

Godwin's law isn't a law. It's liberal horseshit designed to protect liberals from valid associations.

It's an observation that discussions tend to go to shit when they become needlessly inflammatory.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no ******* libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

 

[dblack]

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no ******* libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

The party is consistently against protected class and PA laws. Though they have been active proponents of gay marriage rights.

 

[bripat9643]

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

While I agree with much you've said up until now, I do have to point out that this is a fulfillment of Godwin s Law and you've automatically thrown the argument by invoking it.

Godwin's law isn't a law. It's liberal horseshit designed to protect liberals from valid associations.

It's an observation that discussions tend to go to shit when the become needlessly inflammatory.

Comparing libs to Nazis isn't "inflammatory." It's accurate.

 

[bripat9643]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

The party is consistently against protected class and PA laws. Though they have been active proponents of gay marriage rights.

Libertarians are actually against marriage laws altogether.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Godwin's law isn't a law. It's liberal horseshit designed to protect liberals from valid associations.

1. Hitler was a National Socialist, which is a variant of Socialism, which is related to US style liberalism but only in that both fall under the left.
2. It wasn't about "protecting liberals from valid associations". You might want to look into what his actual motivations were. The tradition that's grown up around it came about for a reason. It's assumed that one only resorts to ad hominem should they have no better point to make. I stress that I agreed with you at least broadly up to now. I didn't even argue with you here. I simply informed you that you fucked up according to the social rules of the internet.

 

[lake avenue]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

 

[lake avenue]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

Here's post from their site if you need more proof that you're just wrong.

 

[lake avenue]

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, actually, it's all in there, since "asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. You think Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to attend gay weddings, is "being an asshole". It's still their religious belief. You most likely think saying that homosexuality is sinful is being an asshole, but it's still their freedom of speech.

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

Here's post from their site if you need more proof that you're just wrong.

Nothing in that article proves I'm wrong.

 

[lake avenue]

I never said any of this. I think Christians using their religion as an excuse not to make this hypothetical cake (therefore denying business) is "being an asshole". You can think whatever you want, I don't honestly care.

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

Here's post from their site if you need more proof that you're just wrong.

Nothing in that article proves I'm wrong.

Yeah, I'm done here. You have proven time and time again reading is not something you enjoy doing. If you ever want to stop being retarded, come talk to me. Until then, don't expect a response.

 

[bripat9643]

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

 

[bripat9643]

There you go sounding just like a liberal again. You're about as libertarian as Adolph Hitler.

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

Here's post from their site if you need more proof that you're just wrong.

Nothing in that article proves I'm wrong.

Yeah, I'm done here. You have proven time and time again reading is not something you enjoy doing. If you ever want to stop being retarded, come talk to me. Until then, don't expect a response.

ROFL! In other words, you can't quote anything in the article that disagrees with anything I have said.

You're obviously an amateur at this.

Now run away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy.

 

[lake avenue]

You understand that libertarians are also very pro-gay? I very much believe that the libertarian party would fight against discrimination before the right to discriminate. It's funny that you're trying to change the subject, though.

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."



goodbye now

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Libertarians are neither pro nor anti gay. However, they are against these fascist laws that require businesses to serve gays.

You really don't know jack about libertarians.

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

 

[dblack]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

 

[lake avenue]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

 

[lake avenue]

We advocate the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; [and] the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

You are really just autistic.

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the **** up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.