• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Republicans’ Gay Freakout

LaylaWindu said:
Well aware and that right, good thing it is not infringed on by equal rights nor is is actually the right to illegally discriminate. There is no right to illegal discriminate so once again I'm not in the anti-rights camp by any means. :)
Click to expand...

But that is the point. If you have a right to discriminate, it is immoral for there to be illegal discrimination. What you are doing is criminalizing an individual right in order to protect a non-existent right. You don't have a right to not be discriminated against. We have made it unlawful to do that, but at the cost of another right. So, yes, you are in the anti-rights camp whether you understand it or not.
 
chromium said:
No you do not have that right if you're going to do business in public, in point of fact

Understand that your form of "liberty" is not the same as the law
Click to expand...

If you have a right, and by right I am referring to natural rights (which is the only way rights can truly be discussed), then a law that violates that right is an unjust law. That a law exists that prevents the free exercise of a right--say, my right to freely associate with people of my choosing--then that law is unjust.
 
Mr Person said:
If you sell me a knife, and one month later I use that knife to cut a steak at a gay person's house, did you participate in my dinner?



The notion that selling someone a product, which they later use in a reception following a ceremony that you disagree with, is "forcing" you to "participate" in the earlier ceremony is laughable. It's transparent. It's a blatant attempt to hide anti-gay animus behind religion.

You know it. I know it. They know it.

We all know it.
Click to expand...

No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
 
Fletch said:
No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Typical anarchist swill posing as something beginning with "L".



The rights you claim to have are determined by social contract. The social contract in this country lead to things like the equal protection of the law and the due process of the law, made applicable to the states by the 14th Amd. And I'm glad that the USSC extended this such that businesses who hold themselves to the public do not have the ability to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. I'm glad states/cities/towns have passed laws including sexual orientation in the list of things that bigots cannot discriminate on the basis of in the name of so-called "rights" or "liberty" (transparent mockeries of language).





However, I am sad that some libertarians understand neither that they are basically anarchists in their opposition to all things government, nor that "totalitarianism" describes Soviet Russia or North Korea, but not at all the United States of America***.

It is further unfortunate that libertarians, who puff themselves up on their statements about individual rights, defend the violation of the rights of others.



***which would not function as a country if so-called "libertarians" had their way.
 
Mr Person said:
Blah blah blah. Typical anarchist swill posing as something beginning with "L".
Click to expand...
Then you wont mind if I stop reading right here then. When you start with this level of ignorance, it is only bound to get worse
 
Fletch said:
No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
Click to expand...


Mr Person said:
Blah blah blah. Typical anarchist swill posing as something beginning with "L".


The rights you claim to have are determined by social contract. The social contract in this country lead to things like the equal protection of the law and the due process of the law, made applicable to the states by the 14th Amd. And I'm glad that the USSC extended this such that businesses who hold themselves to the public do not have the ability to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. I'm glad states/cities/towns have passed laws including sexual orientation in the list of things that bigots cannot discriminate on the basis of in the name of so-called "rights" or "liberty" (transparent mockeries of language).





However, I am sad that some libertarians understand neither that they are basically anarchists in their opposition to all things government, nor that "totalitarianism" describes Soviet Russia or North Korea, but not at all the United States of America***.

It is further unfortunate that libertarians, who puff themselves up on their statements about individual rights, defend the violation of the rights of others.



***which would not function as a country if so-called "libertarians" had their way.
Click to expand...


Fletch said:
Then you wont mind if I stop reading right here then. When you start with this level of ignorance, it is only bound to get worse
Click to expand...


If you are incapable of attempting to convince anyone else to adopt your anarcho-libertarian views, your views aren't worth listening to. So, thank you for the retreat.

You have yet again confirmed for me that most - not all, but most - libertarians are only capable of making self-righteous declarations about what "rights" exist and then running away. Laziest ideology ever.
 
Mr Person said:
If you are incapable of attempting to convince anyone else to adopt your anarcho-libertarian views, your views aren't worth listening to. So, thank you for the retreat.

You have yet again confirmed for me that most - not all, but most - libertarians are only capable of making self-righteous declarations about what "rights" exist and then running away. Laziest ideology ever.
Click to expand...

Lol. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you know nothing about me, libertarians or well, much else, frankly. Perhaps people don't put effort forth on people like you because it isn't worth their time. Ever consider that? Whats the saying? Something about casting pearls before swine? There is no point in making a philosophical argument to people whose heads are cast in concrete.
 
countryboy said:
Freedom of religion doesn't require people to participate in activities which run counter to their religion. If you didn't want legislation like this to become necessary, you shouldn't have persecuted people for exercising their religious freedoms. Not sure what you expected. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That is not how the Constitution works... and I love the hi-jacking of "persecuted". The homosexuals were persecuted in factual history yet now the poor Persecutors are the persecuted, in your revisionist history? :lol:
 
Mr Person said:
If you are incapable of attempting to convince anyone else to adopt your anarcho-libertarian views, your views aren't worth listening to. So, thank you for the retreat.

You have yet again confirmed for me that most - not all, but most - libertarians are only capable of making self-righteous declarations about what "rights" exist and then running away. Laziest ideology ever.
Click to expand...

"If you are incapable of attempting to convince " You might want to rethink the logic of this statement. ;)
 
blackjack50 said:
Republican Christian here. I don't give a crap about gays. Or abortion for that matter. It annoys the hell out of me that the idiots in my party let that even remotely be a factor in elections.
Click to expand...
I am not Christian, but you dont sound like you are either. I am a conservative and do vote Republican, and so the institution of Marriage and Life are on my agenda and it bugs the hell out of me that idiots that say they are in my party have no idea what a very fundamental part of the party is all about.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I don't know where you live but in my country (USA) nobody is being forced to participate in homosexual activities against their will by equal rights.
Click to expand...
Would you say forcing someone to participate in a gay wedding ceremony is not a homosexual activity?
 
Mr Person said:
Sorry if you thought the 1st Amd was about protecting bigots who cowardly hide their bigotry behind claims of religion.


Sadly, it seems likely that there is no deity to explain to them just how wrong they are, after they die.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the secular bigots who use the 14th to allow everything and anything that they want? Your anti-religion infringements are not protected under the First Amendment and the 14th was not any more intended to be twisted in such devious ways to promote immorality.

Such a perversion of an amendment well intentioned to make and protect our black brothers and sisters as equal citizens and attempt to give them protections that others would not otherwise allow is, well, disgusting.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
As opposed to the secular bigots who use the 14th to allow everything and anything that they want? .
Click to expand...

It is not bigotry to stop businesses open to the public from discriminating against gay and black people.

Also, "I know you are but what am I" was dumb even in the fourth grade.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Lol. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you know nothing about me, libertarians or well, much else, frankly. Perhaps people don't put effort forth on people like you because it isn't worth their time. Ever consider that? Whats the saying? Something about casting pearls before swine? There is no point in making a philosophical argument to people whose heads are cast in concrete.
Click to expand...

I literally dare you to take the following to a philosophy professor in a top-30 school (where I went and double-majored in philosophy and philosophy) and present it to them as a "philisophical argument":

Fletch said:
No one should be 'forced' to sell another man anything. If I don't want to sell you a knife simply because you have red hair, that is my business. And since we are both free and equal men, you are out of luck and must purchase a knife elsewhere. Like it or not, I have a right to not wish to deal with anyone I don't wish to deal with. That is how a free society is supposed to operate. we don't have a free society, so the totalitarian side (your side) wins.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Harvard, Yale, Brandeis, Stanford, whatever. You pick. Top 30.

Get to it, Mr. Philosopher.
 
Mr Person said:
It is not bigotry to stop businesses open to the public from discriminating against gay and black people.

Also, "I know you are but what am I" was dumb even in the fourth grade.
Click to expand...
Its bigotry to force someone against their religious beliefs to do something abhorrent to them, sure it is. Its an intolerance that your side would never stand for, showing your own intolerance.

Bigotry = intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Would you say forcing someone to participate in a gay wedding ceremony is not a homosexual activity?
Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony nor is a gay wedding a homosexual activity since weddings aren't only a homosexual activity.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Nobody is forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony nor is a gay wedding a homosexual activity since weddings aren't only a homosexual activity.
Click to expand...
A gay wedding is most certainly a homosexual activity. Being forced to photograph it is participating in a ceremony that a gay marriage is, by definition, a homosexual activity. If it were a heterosexual activity, a man and a woman would be getting married. Certainly the levels of self deception are not so deep on the other side as not to be able to even register that something so fundamentally immoral to one side should be made by law suit a requirement by the other side?
 
countryboy said:
I could say the same to you. You cannot use your SSM "rights" to force people to participate in your homosexual activities against their will. If you hadn't done so, none of this would be happening. What did you expect? Did you think you could force your gay lifestyle on people and there'd be no pushback?
Click to expand...
Uhh...

So far as I know no one is forcing anyone into participating in anything, let alone whatever you're referring to as "homosexual activities".
As I understand it, the point of granting SSM rights was to eliminate the discrimination inherent in it being disallowed prior.

Unless, of course, you're really stretching the meaning of "participate" to include incidental viewing of gay people kissing - but I don't think that counts as participation.
 
The Mark said:
Uhh...

So far as I know no one is forcing anyone into participating in anything
Click to expand...
Oh really? Soooo, ruining a person's life and lively hood because they don't want to participate in a SSM is not forcing? Give me a break already, you are fooling nobody.
 
Mr Person said:
I literally dare you to take the following to a philosophy professor in a top-30 school (where I went and double-majored in philosophy and philosophy) and present it to them as a "philisophical argument":



:lamo

Harvard, Yale, Brandeis, Stanford, whatever. You pick. Top 30.

Get to it, Mr. Philosopher.
Click to expand...

Going to a Top 30 School for Mechanics and majoring in Philosophy twice when once would have worked is quite an accomplishment.
 
countryboy said:
Oh really? Soooo, ruining a person's life and lively hood because they don't want to participate in a SSM is not forcing? Give me a break already, you are fooling nobody.
Click to expand...

No. Their life and livelyhood was ruined because they chose to open a business the operates within public accomdation laws and they CHOSE to violate the law. It is all their fault.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
A gay wedding is most certainly a homosexual activity. Being forced to photograph it is participating in a ceremony that a gay marriage is, by definition, a homosexual activity. If it were a heterosexual activity, a man and a woman would be getting married. Certainly the levels of self deception are not so deep on the other side as not to be able to even register that something so fundamentally immoral to one side should be made by law suit a requirement by the other side?
Click to expand...

So jogging with some gay guys is participating in a "gay activity"? I swear, you can't make up stupid like this.
 
I think what the reactionaries here don't comprehend is that the NC law goes way above and beyond directly participating in a gay marriage. It attempts to allow businesses to refuse lgbt for ANY service - milk at the grocery store or whatever jim crow variant. It goes beyond religion and in fact doesn't mention religion. It simply prevents cities from creating ANY anti discrimination law re: sexuality. It's identical to the colorado law that got thrown out by SCOTUS way back in 1996

So in the end what will happen is this: the federal courts will throw it out, possibly declaring sexual orientation a protected class which will doom the "RFRA" in all these other states, AND in the meantime north carolina will have lost millions-billions in their economy
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
A gay wedding is most certainly a homosexual activity. Being forced to photograph it is participating in a ceremony that a gay marriage is, by definition, a homosexual activity. If it were a heterosexual activity, a man and a woman would be getting married. Certainly the levels of self deception are not so deep on the other side as not to be able to even register that something so fundamentally immoral to one side should be made by law suit a requirement by the other side?
Click to expand...

worthless strawman, that has nothing with the north carolina law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom