I find it very disturbing

[Iceweasel]

Because they're ordering cake. Not some baker's approval.

No, they're demanding approval. Just like the intolerant Nazi ***** that they are.

You're using a reference to Nazis to describe someone ordering cake?

You may want to take a moment and ask yourself how skewed your perspective has to be that such a comparison would seem logical to you.

Yes, genius, the Nazi used force, just like the Gaystapo faggots. They would throw the bakers in concentration camps if they could.

 

[Seawytch]

Because they're ordering cake. Not some baker's approval.

No, they're demanding approval. Just like the intolerant Nazi ***** that they are.

You're using a reference to Nazis to describe someone ordering cake?

You may want to take a moment and ask yourself how skewed your perspective has to be that such a comparison would seem logical to you.

The same people think using slavery as a comparison to being paid for an advertised service is logical.

 

[dblack]

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant.

It's utterly relevant to the kind of laws required to protect said right. That's the entire point. Inalienable rights require only that we mind our own business. That we refrain from forcing our will on others.

All laws are forcing our will upon others.

You can't conceive of laws that prohibit forcing one's will on others? That's not a meaningless distinction, and it's a copout to say that all laws are simply one group bullying another. Ideally, law is an institutional response to those who would initiate force, and doesn't come into play - doesn't force anyone's will on anyone else - unless someone initiates a coercive act.

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration. The alternative, and the kind we seem to be adopting, is a government that is primarily concerned with "managing" society. In this conception, individual inalienable rights aren't recognized, and government serves merely to balance the competing power of society's interest groups.

 

[dblack]

Just to revisit the OP. Can anyone explain the obsession in the media with the gay agenda? Why is the entire country spending so much time and effort trying to justify the deviant behavior of 4% of the population? Why is the government trying to mandate how the majority MUST think and believe about homosexuality? Is it votes? Why? I am sick of hearing about gay weddings, gay florists, gay actors, gay politicians, gay penguins. WTF is wrong with us?

It's a functional distraction. So we don't think too much about the war machine and the bankster games.

 

[Seawytch]

Because they're ordering cake. Not some baker's approval.

No, they're demanding approval. Just like the intolerant Nazi ***** that they are.

You're using a reference to Nazis to describe someone ordering cake?

You may want to take a moment and ask yourself how skewed your perspective has to be that such a comparison would seem logical to you.

Yes, genius, the Nazi used force, just like the Gaystapo faggots. They would throw the bakers in concentration camps if they could.

This is a job for...

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a job for...

...Captain Denial.

 

[Seawytch]

This is a job for...

...Captain Denial.

So we've been a "Nazi state" since the 60s? You'd think we would hear more about that.

OMG Iceweasel...is that a piece of the sky? RUN!!!!!

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a job for...

...Captain Denial.

So we've been a "Nazi state" since the 60s? You'd think we would hear more about that.

OMG Iceweasel...is that a piece of the sky? RUN!!!!!

When did sexual preferences become a race, gender or religion?

 

[Seawytch]

This is a job for...

...Captain Denial.

So we've been a "Nazi state" since the 60s? You'd think we would hear more about that.

OMG Iceweasel...is that a piece of the sky? RUN!!!!!

When did sexual preferences become a race, gender or religion?

When they were added to local Public Accommodation laws. You know, local laws at the local level. (hint: states rights)

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a job for...

...Captain Denial.

So we've been a "Nazi state" since the 60s? You'd think we would hear more about that.

OMG Iceweasel...is that a piece of the sky? RUN!!!!!

When did sexual preferences become a race, gender or religion?

When they were added to local Public Accommodation laws. You know, local laws at the local level. (hint: states rights)

hint: That proves it isn't a Constitutional issue. And not all governments have them, and many are pushing back, ya'll have gone too far.

 

[Seawytch]

This is a job for...

...Captain Denial.

So we've been a "Nazi state" since the 60s? You'd think we would hear more about that.

OMG Iceweasel...is that a piece of the sky? RUN!!!!!

When did sexual preferences become a race, gender or religion?

When they were added to local Public Accommodation laws. You know, local laws at the local level. (hint: states rights)

hint: That proves it isn't a Constitutional issue. And not all governments have them, and many are pushing back, ya'll have gone too far.

What are you talking about? Federal Public Accommodation laws have already found to be Constitutional more than once. Why on earth would you think state PA laws wouldn't be?

 

[dblack]

...Captain Denial.

So we've been a "Nazi state" since the 60s? You'd think we would hear more about that.

OMG Iceweasel...is that a piece of the sky? RUN!!!!!

When did sexual preferences become a race, gender or religion?

When they were added to local Public Accommodation laws. You know, local laws at the local level. (hint: states rights)

hint: That proves it isn't a Constitutional issue. And not all governments have them, and many are pushing back, ya'll have gone too far.

What are you talking about? Federal Public Accommodation laws have already found to be Constitutional more than once. Why on earth would you think state PA laws wouldn't be?

But the question will be re-examined every time a new class is added to the 'protected classes' list. Why shouldn't everyone be on the list? Why should anyone?

 

[Foxfyre]

Just to revisit the OP. Can anyone explain the obsession in the media with the gay agenda? Why is the entire country spending so much time and effort trying to justify the deviant behavior of 4% of the population? Why is the government trying to mandate how the majority MUST think and believe about homosexuality? Is it votes? Why? I am sick of hearing about gay weddings, gay florists, gay actors, gay politicians, gay penguins. WTF is wrong with us?

IMO, the obsession with the LGBT culture being the poster child for justification for leftwing activism, anger, hostility, and politics of personal destruction is because there was so much push back on the whole racism and sexism schticks that ran out of gas long ago. It had been carried to such heights of absurdity that even its most ardent activists were beginning to feel silly and it just wasn't working as well for them anymore.

But they have to have a cause don't they? And currently the LGBT focus is it. It is a crying shame too because instead of reasonableness and allowing the culture to change naturally and amicably, they are using the same evil--that is my impression--tactics that have kept racism and sexism alive and well for sociopolitical expediency. Most don't want reasonable tolerance or even acceptance. They want to appear righteous when exacting revenge and trying to control people. What is evil is that reasonable, normal gay people get smeared with the anger all that generates.

Sooner or later they will run out of gas on that too and then we can look forward to something else being the weapon they use.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think short people should get protected status so the NBA can't discriminate against them.

 

[Redfish]

I think short people should get protected status so the NBA can't discriminate against them.

I think the NBA and NFL should be forced to have rosters that mimic the racial mix of the US population. Whites, asians, and hispanics are being discriminated against while blacks are receiving huge paychecks.





IT JUST AIN'T FAIR------ DAMN IT !

 

[PratchettFan]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

Nope. We have a system in place to do it. We don't need to revamp that system every time a new issue comes up.

LOL! It wants to allow a half dozen Leftist deviants decide what the behavior standard is.

We already voted and the majority of the people in the majority of the states rejected lowering the marriage standard. And that's how it remains.

All we're waiting on at this point is the decision as to whether or not we need to go to war to settle it.

I guess that is what the SCOTUS will decide in June.

That is their job.

 

[PratchettFan]

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant.

It's utterly relevant to the kind of laws required to protect said right. That's the entire point. Inalienable rights require only that we mind our own business. That we refrain from forcing our will on others.

All laws are forcing our will upon others.

You can't conceive of laws that prohibit forcing one's will on others? That's not a meaningless distinction, and it's a copout to say that all laws are simply one group bullying another. Ideally, law is an institutional response to those who would initiate force, and doesn't come into play - doesn't force anyone's will on anyone else - unless someone initiates a coercive act.

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration. The alternative, and the kind we seem to be adopting, is a government that is primarily concerned with "managing" society. In this conception, individual inalienable rights aren't recognized, and government serves merely to balance the competing power of society's interest groups.

How does one enforce a law against forcing your will on another without forcing the collective will on you? Is that not preventing you from doing what you want by force?

The entire purpose of government is to manage society. In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

 

[candycorn]

Just to revisit the OP. Can anyone explain the obsession in the media with the gay agenda? Why is the entire country spending so much time and effort trying to justify the deviant behavior of 4% of the population? Why is the government trying to mandate how the majority MUST think and believe about homosexuality? Is it votes? Why? I am sick of hearing about gay weddings, gay florists, gay actors, gay politicians, gay penguins. WTF is wrong with us?

IMO, the obsession with the LGBT culture being the poster child for justification for leftwing activism, anger, hostility, and politics of personal destruction is because there was so much push back on the whole racism and sexism schticks that ran out of gas long ago. It had been carried to such heights of absurdity that even its most ardent activists were beginning to feel silly and it just wasn't working as well for them anymore.

But they have to have a cause don't they? And currently the LGBT focus is it. It is a crying shame too because instead of reasonableness and allowing the culture to change naturally and amicably, they are using the same evil--that is my impression--tactics that have kept racism and sexism alive and well for sociopolitical expediency. Most don't want reasonable tolerance or even acceptance. They want to appear righteous when exacting revenge and trying to control people. What is evil is that reasonable, normal gay people get smeared with the anger all that generates.

Sooner or later they will run out of gas on that too and then we can look forward to something else being the weapon they use.

Amazing...

In 30 seconds, she'll be posting how "they" are the ones being divisive....

 

[candycorn]

Just to revisit the OP. Can anyone explain the obsession in the media with the gay agenda? Why is the entire country spending so much time and effort trying to justify the deviant behavior of 4% of the population? Why is the government trying to mandate how the majority MUST think and believe about homosexuality? Is it votes? Why? I am sick of hearing about gay weddings, gay florists, gay actors, gay politicians, gay penguins. WTF is wrong with us?

Well, gee, if YOU'RE sick of it, by all means...society must change instantly....

Perhaps you're not as important as you think you are.

 

[dblack]

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant.

It's utterly relevant to the kind of laws required to protect said right. That's the entire point. Inalienable rights require only that we mind our own business. That we refrain from forcing our will on others.

All laws are forcing our will upon others.

You can't conceive of laws that prohibit forcing one's will on others? That's not a meaningless distinction, and it's a copout to say that all laws are simply one group bullying another. Ideally, law is an institutional response to those who would initiate force, and doesn't come into play - doesn't force anyone's will on anyone else - unless someone initiates a coercive act.

I really think we're discussing two fundamentally incompatible conceptions of government. And the main difference between the two is the nominal purpose. In my preferred conception, the purpose of government is to maximally protect our inalienable individual rights, leaving the people free to form the society they want through voluntary collaboration. The alternative, and the kind we seem to be adopting, is a government that is primarily concerned with "managing" society. In this conception, individual inalienable rights aren't recognized, and government serves merely to balance the competing power of society's interest groups.

How does one enforce a law against forcing your will on another without forcing the collective will on you? Is that not preventing you from doing what you want by force?

Libertarians aren't blindly opposed to the use of force. It's the initiation of force we find unacceptable.

The entire purpose of government is to manage society.

Yeah. Well that's definitely where we disagree. Libertarians think government should be the referee, not the coach.

In your preferred conception, what do you do with someone who does not wish to voluntarily collaborate?

Leave them alone.