I find it very disturbing

[PratchettFan]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

Every law forces values on others. Anti-theft laws forces our values on thieves. You cannot exist within any society without having values forced upon you. The only way to escape that is to live in a cabin far from other people.

Again, it's the intent that matters - the goal of laws in the first place. It's a question of whether we want government passing laws to maximize our freedom, or to mandate conformity. Some conformity and forcing of values will be required to protect freedom, but the goal should be to protect freedom, not to mandate values.

Requiring a store to serve everyone does not, in any way, stop anyone from pursuing their unique visions of a good life. Allowing an entire section of the citizenry to be treated as second class citizens does.

It absolutely does.

Let me ask you this. Do you think political or societal protests should be allowed in an economic context? Should we be allowed to express our approval or disapproval of others through our economic decisions?

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

 

[PratchettFan]

What rights are being violated when someone is discriminated against?

The right to walk into a public place (and when a store opens to the public it is a public place) and be treated like anyone else.

No one has that right to begin with.

Seriously. Do you think any of us has a right to "be treated fairly" by others?

By "others"? No. By a company which opens its doors to the public? Yes.

Really??? Then why do we need 'protected classes'? In point of fact, these laws don't demand that businesses treat everyone fairly, and there's no such right.

Because we are human beings and we tend to identify groups in classes. As to being no such right, it would appear from the laws that you are wrong. What there is no such thing as is an inalienable right.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

So do gay people. They want the freedom to marry eachother as is part of their unique vision of life and not be forced to remain unmarried as envisioned by those against same sex marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

"primary issue of civil rights" ? are you a complete idiot? Gay marriage is more important than terrorist murder, 18 trillion in national debt, half the country on the govt dole, 79% of black kids born out of wedlock, gang violence, drugs? Really?

Obozo said the most critical problem is climate change, did he lie?

Gay marriage the primary issue of civil rights????????????????? How stupid.

 

[PratchettFan]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

"primary issue of civil rights" ? are you a complete idiot? Gay marriage is more important than terrorist murder, 18 trillion in national debt, half the country on the govt dole, 79% of black kids born out of wedlock, gang violence, drugs? Really?

Obozo said the most critical problem is climate change, did he lie?

Gay marriage the primary issue of civil rights????????????????? How stupid.

No. I'm not a complete idiot. Perhaps my misunderstanding is that I assumed you could be concerned about more than one thing at a time, as I can. My mistake. I will try to keep that in mind when talking with you in the future.

So, why are you obsessed with it?

 

[Redfish]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

So do gay people. They want the freedom to marry eachother as is part of their unique vision of life and not be forced to remain unmarried as envisioned by those against same sex marriage.

a legal joining of two men or two women is not , and never will be, a marriage.

But, I agree that they should be able to legally commit to each other and have the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. A gay civil union contract does that.

The reason you insist on the word 'marriage' is because you want to use the govt to force societal acceptance of a lifestyle that most human beings consider abnormal.

 

[Redfish]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

"primary issue of civil rights" ? are you a complete idiot? Gay marriage is more important than terrorist murder, 18 trillion in national debt, half the country on the govt dole, 79% of black kids born out of wedlock, gang violence, drugs? Really?

Obozo said the most critical problem is climate change, did he lie?

Gay marriage the primary issue of civil rights????????????????? How stupid.

No. I'm not a complete idiot. Perhaps my misunderstanding is that I assumed you could be concerned about more than one thing at a time, as I can. My mistake. I will try to keep that in mind when talking with you in the future.

So, why are you obsessed with it?

I am not, I am just trying to figure out why so many on the left are obsessed with it. But you answered it, gay marriage is the current left wing "thing".

 

[PratchettFan]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

"primary issue of civil rights" ? are you a complete idiot? Gay marriage is more important than terrorist murder, 18 trillion in national debt, half the country on the govt dole, 79% of black kids born out of wedlock, gang violence, drugs? Really?

Obozo said the most critical problem is climate change, did he lie?

Gay marriage the primary issue of civil rights????????????????? How stupid.

No. I'm not a complete idiot. Perhaps my misunderstanding is that I assumed you could be concerned about more than one thing at a time, as I can. My mistake. I will try to keep that in mind when talking with you in the future.

So, why are you obsessed with it?

And yet here you are. You seem to keep cropping up in the threads on the issue. Interesting behavior for someone not obsessed with it. Ah well.... different strokes and all that.

I am not, I am just trying to figure out why so many on the left are obsessed with it. But you answered it, gay marriage is the current left wing "thing".

 

[dblack]

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

 

[dblack]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

So do gay people. They want the freedom to marry eachother as is part of their unique vision of life and not be forced to remain unmarried as envisioned by those against same sex marriage.

Yes, and I'm in agreement with that. My issue is with the anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Redfish]

Mods, please close this thread or move it to the rubber room. I should have known better than to expect a rational discussion on this topic. My mistake.

 

[bodecea]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

"primary issue of civil rights" ? are you a complete idiot? Gay marriage is more important than terrorist murder, 18 trillion in national debt, half the country on the govt dole, 79% of black kids born out of wedlock, gang violence, drugs? Really?

Obozo said the most critical problem is climate change, did he lie?

Gay marriage the primary issue of civil rights????????????????? How stupid.

Then I'm sure you will no longer rant and rave on such threads as this.

 

[PratchettFan]

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

 

[Redfish]

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

Refusing to call a gay union a marriage does not reduce them to second class status, thats a ridiculous statement.

If, as you claim, the majority of americans approve of gay marriage and want to sanction it, then have congress pass a law making it so.

Your problem is that you are actually smart enough to realize that the majority does not support it so the gay agenda must use the "its in the constitution" argument which fails every time.

 

[Redfish]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

"primary issue of civil rights" ? are you a complete idiot? Gay marriage is more important than terrorist murder, 18 trillion in national debt, half the country on the govt dole, 79% of black kids born out of wedlock, gang violence, drugs? Really?

Obozo said the most critical problem is climate change, did he lie?

Gay marriage the primary issue of civil rights????????????????? How stupid.

Then I'm sure you will no longer rant and rave on such threads as this.

Maybe and maybe not. I just do not get why this is such a big fricken deal with you on the left. I understand why you, as a lesbian, think its a big deal. But why the left has taken it up in place of its racism mantra I don't get------------------or maybe I do.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

So do gay people. They want the freedom to marry eachother as is part of their unique vision of life and not be forced to remain unmarried as envisioned by those against same sex marriage.

Yes, and I'm in agreement with that. My issue is with the anti-discrimination laws.

Why? Do you want to discriminate or be discriminated against?

 

[dblack]

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

So do gay people. They want the freedom to marry eachother as is part of their unique vision of life and not be forced to remain unmarried as envisioned by those against same sex marriage.

Yes, and I'm in agreement with that. My issue is with the anti-discrimination laws.

Why? Do you want to discriminate or be discriminated against?

Discriminate. It's vital to a sustainable life.

 

[Mr Natural]

You find it disturbing, I don't give a shit.

Ying and Yang.

 

[kaz]

Marriage is a religious practice

Has nothing to do with the fucking government

Don't any one see this?

Legal contracts are one of the roles government must play in a society. Marriage is and, since the beginning of civilization, always has been a legal contract.

You're right that marraige is a civil contract but, if between consenting adults and harms no one, government should have no say in who Redfish or anyone else, marries.

Government should have no say in who government recognizes as married, got it. Brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, two women and two men, they should have no say, got it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

So do gay people. They want the freedom to marry eachother as is part of their unique vision of life and not be forced to remain unmarried as envisioned by those against same sex marriage.

Yes, and I'm in agreement with that. My issue is with the anti-discrimination laws.

Why? Do you want to discriminate or be discriminated against?

Discriminate. It's vital to a sustainable life.

How so? If you don't mind me asking.