CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Trump has been elected.
Trying to silence the voices of those behind Trump demeans democracy.
Trying to silence the voices of those behind Trump demeans democracy.
Trump wins
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Carbon Dated and Proud
I see you've supplanted "freedom" with "things I personally want".
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
All people want what they want in their government but it's concern about the fact people try to legislate what they want people to do which concerns me.
It's also something I don't think I have the right to do.
Ragemage
Wept for Zion
But, keeping the states to themselves WOULD be allowing them to choose between gay marriage or not. That's the whole definition of "keeping to themselves", as in, the Federal Government would have to leave them alone and the states get to decide.
What you're describing as what you want is the exact opposite of anarchy. Anarchy would be where the states get to decide things like gay marriage, abortion, segregation, and all these things, no matter how bad or good we think they are, on their own, with no interference from the Federal Government unless it's something that none of the other confederate coalitions can agree with (like perhaps concentration camps for prisoners). Essentially with an anarchistic country, each state or whatever would basically be its own country, just with a single government where they can voice their grievances against other members of the Confederacy. In a real anarchistic confederacy, let's say there are 10 members of the Confederacy. It would take 9 members to overturn something they don't like about one of them. Pretty much like what the very first congress was like back when America was just a bunch of colonies, or the Iroquois Confederacy.
So should churches and bakeries legally be allowed to turn away gays who want a wedding/wedding cake?
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
God damn it, my cheeks hurt from smiling too much.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Thank you very much for illustrating the issue. I believe individual anarchy can only be preserved by a weak government above them which is constantly checked and limited in its ability to enforce to social moores. The state would be able to choose social services and economics but it would be as hamstrung as anything else.
Freedoms don't magically disappear when you have the "wrong" politics. Enforcing private businesses and attitudes to fall under standards of acceptable behavior (even if I agree with it) doesn't make the world a better place as that kind of legislation just mans racism goes underground or finds different ways of confronting it. It's not something I'm happy with but I don't think you should legislate private businesses or religious expression.
The laws which protect hate speech are also laws which protect people who are against it. The South would have been a very different place if voter suppression had been stopped early and people were allowed to speak against racism or racist laws.
Last edited:
>when everyone is celebrating your win but you're already mapping out your second term
More like libertarianism.
So not anarchy.
More like libertarianism.
MercenarySnake
Kept you waiting huh?
Wow it's nice to see normal people instead of loud rainbow hair colored special snowflakes which I'm sure would've been standing by Shillary's side if she ended up winning.>when everyone is celebrating your win but you're already mapping out your second term
So not anarchy.
More like libertarianism.
Yes. For any reason not pertaining to their sexuality.
So the Federal Government should be allowed to come in and force you to do something that may be against your personal and religious beliefs?
Well at least you're not a faggot on some issues I guess.
Good job.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
My general view is libertarianism fails because unregulated markets invariably become governments unto themselves. But yes, libertarianism is a system which I have been influenced by but feel tends to benefit individuals who seek to profit from less government regulation.
Libertarianism doesn't believe in totally unregulated markets.
That's Anarco-Capitalism.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Not a big fan of that either.
Anarco-anything is fucking stupid.
I know someone who calls themself an "Anarco-Socialist" and he's a literal cuckold.
Yes. Within the context you have stated. If you offer wedding services to the public you offer wedding services to the public and the benefits and consequences that entails. The negative effects of allowing discrimination are readily apparent and obviously unacceptable.
But there is a easy out for anyone that doesn't want to perform same sex weddings. Don't be a public accommodation or business. Oh wait, that is every single church. It's how so many churches have been able to deny minorities and interracial marriage. If you want to form some sort of private bakery club turns out you can refuse to serve to gays, blacks, women and Muslims all you want. Again you are free to the benefits and consequences of that action.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
While I agree with you in theory, the simple fact is the law is routinely used as a bludgeon by everyone in power to make who they don't like do what they say--traditionally for racists, sexists, and homophobes. I can't help but think it'd be better to remove that power from the government.
Then again, maybe I'm being naive that such kind of enforcement is possible.
Churches have always been treated as special exceptions.
They shouldn't be forced to commit practices that go against their beliefs.
There is freedom of religion and a part of a lot of religions is that committing homosexual acts is bad so the government shouldn't basically force someone to partake in something they see as a sin.
Here's a thought experiment:
Take your mother(replace with someone in your life you deeply personally respect if you don't have a good relationship with your mother). She goes into a store selects something to buy. The shopkeeper says "We don't serve your kind here". Acceptable?
So churches don't even have to do same sex marriage. You know that. So why bring it up?
Take your mother(replace with someone in your life you deeply personally respect if you don't have a good relationship with your mother). She goes into a store selects something to buy. The shopkeeper says "We don't serve your kind here". Acceptable?
So churches don't even have to do same sex marriage. You know that. So why bring it up?