Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*
- Thread starter Malinatar
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Kuriin
Just a Nurse
- 4,046
- 1,020
Government intentionally sets up regulations that are meant to close them. Doesn't Texas only have one or two abortion clinics in the entire state?
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Where did I ever say I support those regulation. I said government has clearly established the legal right to do so. You know the same government I told I don't like.
You guys are the delusional people that don't see the link between government forcing a bushiness to make a gay wedding cake and government imposing safety regulation upon abortion clinics is the same thing.
You think just because you support one government action and oppose the other government action that the two are different. But there not they're both uses of government power to force people to comply with governments wishes.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Government does that all the time. In the case of abortion clinics they at least leave a out for clinics to comply with regulations and stay open.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Oh, so now he doesn't support these laws allowing discriminatory practices by business owners, and over regulating abortion clinics out of existence.
Cool story bro.
When you're ready to engage in an intellectually honest way on this topic, let me know.
Sure seems that way to me.
Would you care to cite us claiming that either the discriminatory business practices protecting laws like the RFRA in Indiana, or the abortion clinic overregulation, are appropriate actions that we support?
Cause so far I don't think that exists.
I think what's happened here is you've contorted yourself in such an awkward position that you've lost track of which side of what issue you're on.
If you're a libertarian, government protecting business owners "rights" to discriminate based on religion should be something you're against.
Our position: Both these actions by the government are wrong. Its you who are arguing new laws that violate people's rights are okay, not us.
Libertarians need to put down the Randian crack here. You do not have a religious right to discriminate against others. Pointing that out isn't supporting some massive government intrusion into our lives. Demanding the government write laws to protect your right to discriminate is, in fact, supporting massive government intrusion into our daily lives.
Government is going to be involved on some level here, so the question is "Is the government going to stand on the side of the freedom to live your life as you choose without having to fear being told you can't go shopping, or visit a certain psychiatrist or doctor, etc. because of your life choices, or is the government going to make a bunch of laws justifying legal discrimination, and then enforce those laws through the power of the state and judicial systems?"
You want to have your cake and eat it too, but you can't here. It isn't possible.
The government has a vested interest in promoting social cohesion, tolerance and diverse opinions and lifestyles in the body of the Res Publica. There is no ideal situation where the government just gets out of the way and let's the chips fall where they may here.
Theywill beeither enforcing discriminatory practices, or theywill bepreventing them. That's pretty much why this subject is so cut and dry in my opinion. If these laws pass and people try to get access to the goods and services they should have every right to access regardless of their sex, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc., and they are blocked from doing that, it will be the government who is responsible for enforcing those laws at the judicial level.
That's just reality Siddar.
Cool story bro.
When you're ready to engage in an intellectually honest way on this topic, let me know.
I'm pretty sure we're arguing both are wrong, and you're arguing both are correct.
Sure seems that way to me.
Would you care to cite us claiming that either the discriminatory business practices protecting laws like the RFRA in Indiana, or the abortion clinic overregulation, are appropriate actions that we support?
Cause so far I don't think that exists.
I think what's happened here is you've contorted yourself in such an awkward position that you've lost track of which side of what issue you're on.
If you're a libertarian, government protecting business owners "rights" to discriminate based on religion should be something you're against.
Our position: Both these actions by the government are wrong. Its you who are arguing new laws that violate people's rights are okay, not us.
Libertarians need to put down the Randian crack here. You do not have a religious right to discriminate against others. Pointing that out isn't supporting some massive government intrusion into our lives. Demanding the government write laws to protect your right to discriminate is, in fact, supporting massive government intrusion into our daily lives.
Government is going to be involved on some level here, so the question is "Is the government going to stand on the side of the freedom to live your life as you choose without having to fear being told you can't go shopping, or visit a certain psychiatrist or doctor, etc. because of your life choices, or is the government going to make a bunch of laws justifying legal discrimination, and then enforce those laws through the power of the state and judicial systems?"
You want to have your cake and eat it too, but you can't here. It isn't possible.
The government has a vested interest in promoting social cohesion, tolerance and diverse opinions and lifestyles in the body of the Res Publica. There is no ideal situation where the government just gets out of the way and let's the chips fall where they may here.
Theywill beeither enforcing discriminatory practices, or theywill bepreventing them. That's pretty much why this subject is so cut and dry in my opinion. If these laws pass and people try to get access to the goods and services they should have every right to access regardless of their sex, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc., and they are blocked from doing that, it will be the government who is responsible for enforcing those laws at the judicial level.
That's just reality Siddar.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
Siddar the will of the people is anti discrimination. You can and should not write laws that give people the ability to discriminate. Raising religous based ethos over all other ethos is discrimination. Creating laws to ruin the ability for young women to abort a fetus reasonably is a religious based code of law...brought in by a dying class of human. Any lip service to "safety" is out the window when you look at abortion complication statistics in every state.
The right played a big card the last two decades building a bulkhead of right leaning idiots forcing changes nobody under 30 wants in our state populace. While the left was playing hard for the federal level govt. Redistricting is further entrenching nut jobs.
To hell with them all.
I also like libertarians...married one... but siddar is the worst kind of libertarian.
The right played a big card the last two decades building a bulkhead of right leaning idiots forcing changes nobody under 30 wants in our state populace. While the left was playing hard for the federal level govt. Redistricting is further entrenching nut jobs.
To hell with them all.
I also like libertarians...married one... but siddar is the worst kind of libertarian.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Coming from a guy who is, on all levels but physical, a wolf, I'll take that as a compliment.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
You support existing anti discrimination laws that force people to provide services to those who they disagree with while opposing government safety regulation upon abortion clinics.
In other words your willing to force a business to make a gay wedding cake while at same time decrying government regulation of abortion clinics and also to oppose changes to the law to not require business to provides services like gay wedding cakes.
Your position has no coherent political theory behind it other then achieving your desired objectives by any means available.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
The "No you!" argument isn't a rebuttal.
Anti discrimination laws have been on the books for decades.
You support an expansion of government power into the daily lives of people. We don't.
Enjoy.
- 17,781
- 25,897
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
I miss the 90s libertarians who were pro legal pot and pro gay marriage and pro lower taxes, but not pro turning the nation into a Randian nightmare akin to Andrew Ryan's Rapture.
Not many of them left anymore.
I blame Glenn Beck, personally.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,488
- 29,659
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Anti descrimnation laws were not used to force people to make anti gay wedding cakes until recently. when people started abusing these laws at the state level it started a movement to change them in order to reduce government regulation. In the case of regulating abortion clinics it is the opposite case it is a increase in government regulation.
In no way am I supporting expansion of government into peoples lives.
You on the otherhand support expansion of government into peoples line by allowing increased use of existing laws, while at same time opposing other regulation doing the same thing in regards to abortion clinics.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
dou?ble?think
'd?b?l?THiNGk/Submit
noun
the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.
Furry logic: Not allowing people to discriminate is the intellectual equivalent of slavery.
This is literally Orwellian degrees of double speak, as I pointed out with tad way back at the start of this conversation.
Black is white.
Up is down.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Anti discrimination laws were used to force businesses to stop serving blacks at separate counters. They were used to stop businesses from forcing blacks to drink at different water fountains. They were used to force businesses to, yes, make cakes for interracial marriages.
All these things and more.
I swear the real issue here is our educational system has failed you. That's the real issue here.
Except for the fact that you are, in fact, doing exactly that.
These are new laws allowing new forms of discrimination based on religious beliefs. So yes, you are.
SURPRISE!