as this post demonstrates, today’s liberals have an unbounded faith in govt to produce a good society. classical liberals (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) had a contempt for govt and didn’t trust it at all. “That government is best which governs least.”
It’s already been demonstrated that you’re wrong about what happened there. Their group filed the lawsuit and part of discovery is getting documents related to the suit.
More accurately, a for-profit business was required to follow anti-discrimination laws.
Tough shit for them. When you apply for and receive a license from the state that requires you to not turn away a fare unless your life is in danger, then you have to abide by that or get out of that business.
I think your response is to be expected. as long as its not my group that’s being targeted or coerced against my own will, then no one raises a stink. but tomorrow or next year it could change, and you will be making the same journey I have. hello libertarians!
I have great faith in individuals pursuing their own self-interest serving that self-interest and, if the profit motive is appropriate, providing some benefits to others, too.
But that self-interest always has to be moderated by the interests of the society and the civilization that we all live in and depend on, including a system of laws and justice. That’s what government is. It’s amazing to me that any kind of law could viewed as a “restriction on freedom” when, in fact, the enshrinement of law in a democratic system of government with checks and balances between the branches is fundamental to both freedom and civilization.
There are different kinds of tyranny – there’s tyranny of government when democratic principles are lost, and there’s tyranny of the economically powerful when government is weak – like the wealthy and corporations amassing control of resources, creating monopolies and gouging the public, and endangering public health. The difference is that private enterprise is always self-interested, while democratic government is the last best hope of representing the people. As I and others have already said, for example, individuals pursuing their self-interest is precisely what created slavery, and government is precisely what ended it. It’s a great metaphor.
Not it’s not. It’s scum-sucking tiny-dicks who want power.
Please. As a gay atheist who was home-schooled I have been targeted for most of my life. Being told that you can’t refuse to serve someone as part of your public, for-profit business is not discrimination. Losing your job, not being hired, losing your housing, being physically assaulted and numerous other mistreatment is.
They did. You can see their statement here:
Here’s their statement:
The rest of the link involves other things that ACLU Texas did to help fight for religious liberty, including helping students include religious messages in their school’s holiday gift bags, helping a prisoner sue after the prison didn’t let him participate in Christian worship services, and trying to get the kids that were seized from the fundamentalist Mormons given back to them.
I think there will continue to be a place for the non-violent groups, although there may be less tolerance for groups that aggressively proselytize others. I don’t think it will be entirely forbidden but frequent and continual pursuit of someone who has made it clear they are not interested will be seen more as harassment than “spreading the Good News”.
So long as they don’t break the laws, yes.
I mean, no one is outlawing the KKK or American Nazi Party. Most of us don’t like those people and find their beliefs repugnant, but as long as they don’t break the law they’re allowed to believe what they want. Historically, there has been a problem with some of those folks being law-abiding, and that’s been the case regardless of whether conservatives or liberals are in control of the government.
I think the Amish set most of the precedent here. So long as their children are educated to a certain level - mostly basic literacy and numeracy - religious groups are allowed to have their own schools. It’s not unreasonable to demand that certain minimum requirements that would allow the children to function, and a religion that would advocate, say, keeping girls entirely uneducated probably would run into problems. The Amish already took the school issue to the Supreme Court - their kids have to be educated until 14, they have to have sufficient literacy so that if they choose to leave the group they could continue their education if they choose (usually via GED, sometimes followed by college). The Amish run and staff their own schools. So far as I know, every other religious group (like the Hasidim in New York and some Muslim groups) have adhered to the same basic guidelines.
I see no reason why conservative groups couldn’t continue to publish books and other materials. They might have to set up their own distribution networks if the mainstream isn’t interested in what they’re promoting but if anything it’s easier to do small scale publishing/production than ever before.
Why wouldn’t religious groups be able to start their own businesses? Now, businesses not directly related to the religion (in other words, not a church/synagogue/mosque or some other directly religious organization) may be required to adhere to secular rules they don’t like. Well, I’m sorry, if you’re doing business in the secular world you have to deal with secular rules. Yes, that might mean being required to pay for, say, birth control. They might have to choose to either stick with strictly religious business endeavors or keep their businesses so small they aren’t required to adhere to the same level of compliance.
This liberal says forcing pastors to turn over sermons is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and it should stop immediately - unless of course said pastors are doing something like fomenting armed revolution, cooking meth in the basement, or otherwise committing major felonies.
No pastor/minister/priest/priestess/whatever should be forced to perform a marriage in conflict with the basic principles of their religion. That’s why we have an institution of secular marriage and secular officials who can perform such marriages, to give people an alternative. Insisting a Fundamentalist Christian minister or a Catholic priest perform a same sex marriage is, again, a violation of freedom of religion and if it’s going on it should stop immediately.
If you want to abdicate your own responsibility to provide for and participate in the operation of civilization, I can only wish you the best of luck as you take your free rides.
Gots to go suck down some Mad Dog 20/20 now.
(Not having read the thread…)
You say that as if there’s something wrong with it. 
If the OP thinks the GOP is dying I don’t understand how libertarianism is supposed to ameliorate the devastation wrought by libs. Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot. I mean uh, end the Fed.
Liberals will never rule this country. The only time we ruled was in the 1930s and that was because all the angry white racists in the south voted democrat because they felt the republicans were the party that demanded blacks be treated nicely. It was a progressive coalition full of southern conservatives.
The racial and class divisions in the US are too deep for a true progressive majority anytime soon. Maybe (emphasis on maybe) if millennials and non-whites keep up their voting preferences, and the fox audience keeps dying off then the US may be center left in the 2020s. But I’m not holding my breath. People used to think the boomers would move the country to the left. All they did was vote themselves a tax cut and obsess over culture wars while the plutocrats picked the country clean.
Well, those things are discrimination too, but I think being told that you can’t refuse to serve someone as part of your business could be discrimination. If I own a business that makes wedding cakes, and I seriously have a religious belief that says that gay marriage is wrong and that its sinful to participate in a gay wedding or encourage that, the government is basically saying that, if I want to stay in business, I have to do something I think is immoral. And that rubs me the wrong way a little bit. I’m not sure that it’s ok for the government to force someone to do something that’s against their religion or punish them if they don’t.
If they are open to business with the public yes, I think they will be. Sorry. On the flip side, an atheist baker will probably have to accommodate people who want cakes and such for things like communion and bar mitzvah parties, too.
Uh… why not? Muslims aren’t required to force others to abstain, they are only required to abstain themselves from alcohol consumption.
Yes, if they can actually keep it peaceful.
Again, that was wrong. Unless there’s reason to believe those sermons were about, oh, how to cook and sell meth rather than a religious topic but I seriously doubt that’s the issue.
Er… it’s the liberals who have been upholding things like civil rights for minorities and such for quite awhile. What makes you think these liberal people are anti First Amendment?
Really, as someone who been outside the mainstream for my entire life I’m quite happy I no longer have it beat over my head so much that “good Christian” is the standard and the rest of us are here on sufferance and should STFU and stop whining.
As an insurance agent, I regularly was required to provide service to people that I found repugnant. Plenty of business models I disagreed with or found immoral. I didn’t care for working with those groups, but have no problem with my license to do business requiring me to.
Boo-fricking-hoo - back in the 1980’s I knew a couple of voodoo congregations that were forced to move their houses of worship because their local municipalities didn’t allow the butchery of animals in their jurisdiction, which is an integral part of Haitian Voudoun and related religions like Santeria and Ife. That strikes me as a heck of a lot more inconvenient that having to bake a gay wedding cake.
If you can’t serve ALL of the public then don’t be in business. Go work for a baker, so that when the gay couple comes in to order a cake you can tell you boss it’s against your religion and he/she can get a different employee to accommodate the couple.
If you can’t abide by secular rules then don’t open a secular business.
You are not free to discriminate someone because of their sexual orientation, that is not something you should be allowed to do. You are not free to do bad things to other people, it is a very simple concept.
Why is that horrific? It’s only horrific if you feel it’s somehow your right to impose your views on other people.
TRUE tolerance means allowing others to disagree with you.
Yes, you have to serve all customers and that’s the way I want it. If I want my rights respected I have to respect their rights. If a customer orders a cake it’s not about the cake YOU want, it’s about the cake THEY want. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand capitalism and you don’t understand what the phrase “equal rights” means.
A lot of conservatives seem butt-hurt that they can’t force others to live by their rules anymore.
That’s fine. I have a problem with your license to do business requiring you to do so, though.