Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre hereYou explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
Like what? You sound hysterical now. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stickYou explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:
So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
Thanks.