When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[Skylar]

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

 

[martybegan]

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

 

[Skylar]

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

I kind myself a libertarian, BUT I strongly believe that all American citizens should have equal rights. It doesn't matter what the so-called "religious" crowd believes one bit to me and many, many others. It's too bad the republican party has allowed itself to be infested with these so-called "religious" creatures.

You and Barry Goldwater:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

 

[ChrisL]

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

You sound much more nutty, sorry to inform you. The fact of the matter is . . . gay people are people and United States citizens who pay taxes and are entitled to be treated equally. Whether you like what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms doesn't really matter in the big picture. What IS important is that all American citizens are treated equally and have equal access to public accommodations.

 

[martybegan]

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

You sound much more nutty, sorry to inform you. The fact of the matter is . . . gay people are people and United States citizens who pay taxes and are entitled to be treated equally. Whether you like what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms doesn't really matter in the big picture. What IS important is that all American citizens are treated equally and have equal access to public accommodations.

1. Who said they were not people.
2. The bakers pay taxes too, or at least they used to until they were run out of business.
3. The issue isn't what is going on in the bedrooms, the issue is what is going on at the wedding ceremony.
4. Why is a contracted service a public accommodation?

 

[ChrisL]

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

You sound much more nutty, sorry to inform you. The fact of the matter is . . . gay people are people and United States citizens who pay taxes and are entitled to be treated equally. Whether you like what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms doesn't really matter in the big picture. What IS important is that all American citizens are treated equally and have equal access to public accommodations.

1. Who said they were not people.
2. The bakers pay taxes too, or at least they used to until they were run out of business.
3. The issue isn't what is going on in the bedrooms, the issue is what is going on at the wedding ceremony.
4. Why is a contracted service a public accommodation?

A bakery is a public accommodation business. ???

 

[Skylar]

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

You sound much more nutty, sorry to inform you. The fact of the matter is . . . gay people are people and United States citizens who pay taxes and are entitled to be treated equally. Whether you like what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms doesn't really matter in the big picture. What IS important is that all American citizens are treated equally and have equal access to public accommodations.

1. Who said they were not people.
2. The bakers pay taxes too, or at least they used to until they were run out of business.
3. The issue isn't what is going on in the bedrooms, the issue is what is going on at the wedding ceremony.
4. Why is a contracted service a public accommodation?

A bakery is a public accommodation business. ???

Walking in and buying a cupcake? Probably. Contracting service to provide a cake for a wedding ceremony? Nope.

None of these business said they would deny point of sale service to gay people, they just did not want to provide a cake for a gay wedding ceremony.

 

[martybegan]

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

 

[martybegan]

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

 

[Skylar]

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

 

[ChrisL]

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

 

[martybegan]

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

I have a feeling the Trump #'s are higher, its just that people don't want to admit it in polling.

Hell, this may be a moot issue because Hillary is doing her 4th quarter swoon, and Trump almost seems to want to GIVE the nomination away at this point.

 

[martybegan]

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

 

[ChrisL]

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

 

[Skylar]

I try to be fair. And I consider the libertarian argument to be principled, if misguided.

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

I have a feeling the Trump #'s are higher, its just that people don't want to admit it in polling.

Hell, this may be a moot issue because Hillary is doing her 4th quarter swoon, and Trump almost seems to want to GIVE the nomination away at this point.

A former head of one Trump supporting PAC offered an interesting insight; Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to say he *could* have been president if he'd wanted to.

 

[ChrisL]

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

The states have in fact determined that discrimination is harmful, not only to individuals or groups of individuals, but also to business.

 

[ChrisL]

"principled, if misguided". I have to remember that one. Also, thank you for using the small "l" in libertarian instead of big "L". Those guys are nutters.

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

PA laws have a place and a use (hence my small "l" standings), however I do not go for the whole "discrimination is harm in of itself" argument. An actual harm has to be proven before the government can take a side, and it cannot get involved just because someone's feelings are hurt. When it comes to point of sale discrimination I raise the bar on claims of conscience, because a point of sale transaction ends at the exit of the door, you don't know what the person is going to do with the vended item. Contracted services on the other hand are more explicit, and you know what you are providing the good or service for, or may even have to attend the event.

And don't think Trump doesn't get some lovin from traditionally Democratic voters, Trump does best in open primaries, where white middle-lower class white dems can cross the line.

You are dealing with the "they took our jerbs!" crowd, and those guys vote dem as often as the vote Repub.

About 7% of dems would cross and vote for Trump instead of Hillary. About 25% of republicans would cross and vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

I have a feeling the Trump #'s are higher, its just that people don't want to admit it in polling.

Hell, this may be a moot issue because Hillary is doing her 4th quarter swoon, and Trump almost seems to want to GIVE the nomination away at this point.

A former head of one Trump supporting PAC offered an interesting insight; Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to say he *could* have been president if he'd wanted to.

I wouldn't doubt that for a minute. The guy is a complete arrogant narcissistic ass. Lol. How anyone could take that crude ass seriously, I do not know.

 

[martybegan]

Well, my best impression of libertarians is that they seek to maximize liberty by limiting government power over people. I can respect the intent and see it as a principled, rational goal. There are simply flaws in the libertarian thought process that I think work counter to their stated goals. And often result in far less liberty in practice.

And its right about where PA laws come in: the abuse of private power.

Libertarians do a fine job of recognizing that government power can be abused if concentrated and unchecked. And they're right. What many fail to recognize, or recognizing, fail to assess......is that its any concentration of unchecked power that can be abused. Including, and perhaps especially, the application of private power.

The reasons I don't give the libertarians too much shit about it is two fold. First, they apply a necessary pressure against expanded government power. Second, on issues of genuine social change they may have a stronger argument than I'd originally concluded.

Trump's rise has laid bare the hateful, racist, deeply bigoted underbelly of many conservatives. Making it ridiculously clear that simply legislating away certain actions doesn't do much to mitigate the actual views that produced it. All it does is push it underground. Most genuine social change comes at the person to person level. Which is where the libertarians feel the government should have the least influence.

I'm not convinced of their argument. But I think they may have a few points that are stronger than I originally thought.

There are "extreme" libertarians just like with any other group. Most modern day libertarians believe in regulations for businesses and social support networks for the poor.

Regulations? Yes. 1000 page regulations that are designed not to regulate, but to either eliminate what is being regulated, or pad lawyer's pockets? No.

And very few libertarians believe the feds should be involved with social nets. Its a local problem, and should be paid with local money (my federalist side taking over here).

Well, you are just wrong. I've conversed with MANY young libertarians, and they most certainly do believe in regulations for businesses as well as social support networks.

You people are confused with religious rights. Religious rights do NOT give anyone the "right" to discriminate against any one group or groups of people. They give you the right to practice your religion and choose your own religion or no religion at all. When it comes to BUSINESS, you still have to follow the laws like everyone else. When you open up a business that serves the "PUBLIC" that includes those groups that you may not like or agree with. When it comes to your PERSONAL life, you are free to be a religious bigot. (You in the general sense of course)

I really don't think you are talking with libertarians in that case. I can say I'm a pop tart, it does't make me one (mmmm, pop tarts).

If you are not free to exercise your religion even in cases of business when there is no real harm caused by said actions, then there really isn't freedom of religion. (or more exactly, free exercise). When there is no real harm to the "offended party" then what you are punishing is beliefs, not the denial of a service because of those beliefs.

There is simply no good reason to ruin people over not baking a cake, when there are plenty of other cakes out there.

Your religious beliefs have no place when conducting business. If you cannot separate the two, then just don't open up a public accommodation business or you will get in trouble for discrimination. End of story.

Why? If there is no real harm, why does the gay person's feelings outweigh the Christians feelings?

And I keep asking why a contracted transaction is a public accommodation?