libertarianloki

libertarianloki:

i-am-dallas:

Gay marriage is also a 1st Amendment issue in the U.S. because if the government were to say “It is unlawful to force a church to not discriminate against homosexual couples” then they are creating laws that respect an establishment of religion. Obviously they are forbidden from doing this. Anti-gay marriage views are not secular and necessarily require respecting an establishment of religion, and in particular, Christianity.

Well, the government is either violating separation of church and state by disallowing discrimination against gays, or it is violating the first amendment by creating laws that respect a religious establishment.

Incorrect. If it was my religion to kill people, would you say the government is violating separation of church and state by forbidding me to do so? After all, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid killing.

Answer: Of course not. “Separation of Church and State” is not a principal that allows religious institutions to do as they please.

Obviously, the first option is more desirable,

Lol… no, it’s not more desirable, and if that was true, then it would say that.

since we would like to reduce the amount of bigotry in the world, however, the constitution does not actually give the government the power to dictate to an individual if they must wed two people.

We’re not talking about individuals. We’re talking specifically about businesses and public access institutions. No one would agree that I, as a single person, am not allowed to discriminate or be racist or whatever. It has never been illegal to be a bigot.

In fact, government involvement in marriage altogether is unconstitutional, at least on the federal level.

Totally agree.

The state level is another matter, and frankly, I believe, a fatal oversight on the part of the founding fathers when it comes to personal liberty. 

Not an oversight. It was intentional. Please reference the 10th Amendment.

redbloodedamerica
redbloodedamerica:

i-am-dallas:

mediaresearchcenter:

Do you agree?

I used to be against the government forcing anyone to do anything, then, about 6 months later, I grew up. I now realize that the argument that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their race is the same argument that churches make when they refuse to wed someone because of irrelevant reasons about their sexual proclivities.I do not agree that religious conviction should permit someone to discriminate against the public, especially seeing how marriage is a protected right. And I ESPECIALLY don’t agree that anyone who receives 5 billion dollars a year in tax breaks should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of the reason.Sorry, but you don’t live in a solipsist universe. Other people exist. Don’t like it? My suggestion for you would be to either close down your church (which, as an atheist, I’d love), or move out of the country (which, as a patriot, I would also love).

If you’re in agreement with the government forcing anyone to do anything, are any of us truly free?

No. There are rules and laws restricting some of our freedom for the betterment of society.

Would you be okay with an African American band being forced to perform at a backyard KKK rally?

Fallacy. Attacking a straw man. It is logically consistent to oppose being forced to sing at a KKK rally while also supporting the fact that any public institution cannot discriminate for a predefined list of reasons, none of which does your analogy acknowledge - which is why it’s a straw man.

Would you be okay with a Jewish catering service being forced to cater a Nazis skinhead party?

Another fallacy. Same as above.

Would you be okay with an atheist DJ being forced to perform at a religious event?

Same as above.

Marriage is a religious or spiritual ceremony/custom, so therefore it is a right under the Constitution;  but there is no right in the United States, or on the face of the planet for that matter, that declares anyone HAS to do something against their will.

False. Plus you’re confused. We’re not talking about a right to force people to do something. We’re talking about a right to be free from unlawful discrimination. This discrimination can be penalized.  And so what has essentially been accomplished is to force you to comply with my rights either by paying me money again and again, closing up shop, or changing your practices. So you are wrong on two levels.

 That is slavery whether your agree with the reasoning behind the decision or not.

The same thing could be said about the entire existence of any government or government policy. It is a form of force which negatively effects some people. Are you advocating for anarchy?

 No, every American has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason they seem fit, even if that reason is bigoted, racist, homophobic, religious, or otherwise.

No, they don’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts#United_States

 The Civil Rights Act is not permission to stomp personal liberty to fight injustice.

Yes, it is. But this is not the only act. Click the link I provided above. I didn’t mention this act. You did. So you’re not refuting my argument but building up another straw man.

 You wrote in your post that you linked to, “Why do you want to stop someone from getting married?"  If you can’t understand how this is not the same thing, then I can’t help you.

Ah, yes, but that comment was made a while back and it was directed at someone else for an entirely different reason, none of which was used in my argument with you today. But it’s a good question, I feel.

 No, one is denying homosexuals the opportunity to get married, only the state can do that; they are merely opting out of offering their services to the event.

The cafes and restaurants did the exact same thing to the blacks in the 60’s. They said the same thing: “We’re not trying to say that negros can’t eat at the front tables in restaurants, but that we are merely opting out of offering our services to them.” So you would have to agree with them, right? They should be allowed to discriminate against people?

Again, you are letting your bigotry for organized religion get the better of your reasoning and have taken opposition to another form of intolerance to an irrational, reckless extreme.

lol wait a second…. MY bigotry of organized religion? Funny because, the last I checked, the United States was set up precisely to stand in opposition to your bigotry, which clearly still persist today. I am saying you should not be allowed to discriminate against protected classes, and you are saying that NOT allowing you to discriminate is bigotry against religion? LOL…. well if you’re trying to destroy the stereotypes about religious bigotry, you are not doing a good job.

redbloodedamerica:

i-am-dallas:

mediaresearchcenter:

Do you agree?

I used to be against the government forcing anyone to do anything, then, about 6 months later, I grew up.

I now realize that the argument that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their race is the same argument that churches make when they refuse to wed someone because of irrelevant reasons about their sexual proclivities.

I do not agree that religious conviction should permit someone to discriminate against the public, especially seeing how marriage is a protected right. And I ESPECIALLY don’t agree that anyone who receives 5 billion dollars a year in tax breaks should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of the reason.

Sorry, but you don’t live in a solipsist universe. Other people exist. Don’t like it? My suggestion for you would be to either close down your church (which, as an atheist, I’d love), or move out of the country (which, as a patriot, I would also love).

If you’re in agreement with the government forcing anyone to do anything, are any of us truly free?

No. There are rules and laws restricting some of our freedom for the betterment of society.

Would you be okay with an African American band being forced to perform at a backyard KKK rally?

Fallacy. Attacking a straw man. It is logically consistent to oppose being forced to sing at a KKK rally while also supporting the fact that any public institution cannot discriminate for a predefined list of reasons, none of which does your analogy acknowledge - which is why it’s a straw man.

Would you be okay with a Jewish catering service being forced to cater a Nazis skinhead party?

Another fallacy. Same as above.

Would you be okay with an atheist DJ being forced to perform at a religious event?

Same as above.

Marriage is a religious or spiritual ceremony/custom, so therefore it is a right under the Constitution;  but there is no right in the United States, or on the face of the planet for that matter, that declares anyone HAS to do something against their will.

False. Plus you’re confused. We’re not talking about a right to force people to do something. We’re talking about a right to be free from unlawful discrimination. This discrimination can be penalized.  And so what has essentially been accomplished is to force you to comply with my rights either by paying me money again and again, closing up shop, or changing your practices. So you are wrong on two levels.

 That is slavery whether your agree with the reasoning behind the decision or not.

The same thing could be said about the entire existence of any government or government policy. It is a form of force which negatively effects some people. Are you advocating for anarchy?

 No, every American has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason they seem fit, even if that reason is bigoted, racist, homophobic, religious, or otherwise.

No, they don’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts#United_States

 The Civil Rights Act is not permission to stomp personal liberty to fight injustice.

Yes, it is. But this is not the only act. Click the link I provided above. I didn’t mention this act. You did. So you’re not refuting my argument but building up another straw man.

 You wrote in your post that you linked to, “Why do you want to stop someone from getting married?"  If you can’t understand how this is not the same thing, then I can’t help you.

Ah, yes, but that comment was made a while back and it was directed at someone else for an entirely different reason, none of which was used in my argument with you today. But it’s a good question, I feel.

 No, one is denying homosexuals the opportunity to get married, only the state can do that; they are merely opting out of offering their services to the event.

The cafes and restaurants did the exact same thing to the blacks in the 60’s. They said the same thing: “We’re not trying to say that negros can’t eat at the front tables in restaurants, but that we are merely opting out of offering our services to them.” So you would have to agree with them, right? They should be allowed to discriminate against people?

Again, you are letting your bigotry for organized religion get the better of your reasoning and have taken opposition to another form of intolerance to an irrational, reckless extreme.

lol wait a second…. MY bigotry of organized religion? Funny because, the last I checked, the United States was set up precisely to stand in opposition to your bigotry, which clearly still persist today. I am saying you should not be allowed to discriminate against protected classes, and you are saying that NOT allowing you to discriminate is bigotry against religion? LOL…. well if you’re trying to destroy the stereotypes about religious bigotry, you are not doing a good job.

libertarianloki

libertarianloki asked:

I enjoy reading your opinions, but I disagree with you concerning gay marriage. I agree that marriage equality should exist, but I don't think anyone should be forced to accommodate it. I wouldn't say that this is just an attack on religious liberty, but also freedom of choice. People have the right to choose, even if their choice is to be a bigot.

i-am-dallas answered:

I used to have the same opinion as you. But let me ask you something, and I’m being serious here. Think about your answer carefully….

If I owned my own fuel station, should I be allowed to say “I refuse to serve you because you’re white”? If not, why not? If yes, then we are an impasse. But even if you believe that I should be allowed to discriminate like this, you must acknowledge that the rules prohibit that behavior, fairly or not, and so it should be the same rules for any institution, regardless of religious conviction.

Show me a legitimate reason why a church should hold an exception to discriminate but other businesses and public services cannot. If you can do that, I might come back to your way of thinking.

libertarianloki:

Well, I’m afraid we are at an impasse then. I seek maximum freedom of choice, no laws against discrimination whatsoever. But perhaps, you should consider taking the opposite approach you are taking now. Instead of saying “None of these people have freedom of choice, so neither should you.” say “This person has freedom of choice, so everyone else should also.”. Instead of sliding the slippery slope of authoritarianism, slide the slippery slope of libertarianism. 

Fair enough. But like I said, even IF we are at an impasse (which we clearly are) you must acknowledge that the rules as they currently exist prohibit that sort of behavior. Else, what is your justification outside of “freedom to choose”? After all, we do not live in an anarchy.

And as far as your belief that you’d rather have the freedom to choose, I think this is a belief born of ideology, rather than reason and application. Forgive me for being blunt, but it’s so immature, it’s almost infantile. The reason is because if your freedom imposes on the rights of another, then perhaps your freedom should be subjugated.

Here’s a quote by someone else on Tumblr that wraps up my sarcastic view of the issue:

"Libertarians just don’t seem to think too far beyond the sound-bits of what they say. Sure let’s limit government. Let’s let the market take care of things like schools and roads and fire stations. We can have an armed, independent militia instead of the National Guard/police forces and the market will determine what businesses stay and what businesses go. None of this will lead to rampant racism, hate crimes, violence, cronyism, and vast inequality. But I mean, if it does, freedom! Right?" -dinosaurseatyourpeas

Anonymous asked:

Just wondering. Doesn't the Church get money for doing any marriage services?If so, doesn't God love money? Plus if they do get paid. money is money. Wether it comes from a Black man, White man, Transgender, Brown girl, etc.

Generally speaking, you pay the church for its services, yes.

Does God love money? Well, I don’t believe in God. But apparently that’s the one thing God can’t get enough of for some reason.

And yes, redundant but true, “money is money” no matter where it comes from. It is a source of revenue. That source of revenue comes from a societal framework that costs everyone (but churches) money to prop up, yet churches owe none of their money back to the society that made it all possible.

It is in my belief that Churches who both deny gay marriage and churches that receive tax breaks while the rest of us have to pay are thoroughly unAmerican.

libertarianloki asked:

I enjoy reading your opinions, but I disagree with you concerning gay marriage. I agree that marriage equality should exist, but I don't think anyone should be forced to accommodate it. I wouldn't say that this is just an attack on religious liberty, but also freedom of choice. People have the right to choose, even if their choice is to be a bigot.

I used to have the same opinion as you. But let me ask you something, and I’m being serious here. Think about your answer carefully….

If I owned my own fuel station, should I be allowed to say “I refuse to serve you because you’re white”? If not, why not? If yes, then we are an impasse. But even if you believe that I should be allowed to discriminate like this, you must acknowledge that the rules prohibit that behavior, fairly or not, and so it should be the same rules for any institution, regardless of religious conviction.

Show me a legitimate reason why a church should hold an exception to discriminate but other businesses and public services cannot. If you can do that, I might come back to your way of thinking.

Anonymous asked:

You are without a doubt the most opinionated 18 year old that I Internet know. Also, RBA just dusted you.

1) I’m in my mid-thirties.
2) If I’m the most opinionated person on the internet that you “know” (which you don’t), then your experience on the internet is severely lacking.
3) And you only agree with RBA because it suits your religious agenda. If you notice I responded and thoroughly beat him down.

But I want to know something: What does it feel like for society to require a constitutional amendment to keep you religious nut-jobs at bay? Think about it. People abandoned their own homes, family, friends and culture, came to a new place, declared war against their own brothers back home, and established new rules specifically directed at your religious views because they have been so so intolerant, so bigoted, so anti-freedom, so totalitarian in the past. Today they exist as anti-American. They are barbaric remnants of uncivilized society. Those views clearly still exist today, and it is these views which you defend. This should give you a clue.

My clue is this: My comment bothered you enough to go out of your way to personally attack me. If I was stupid and hadn’t spent so much time in debate, I might not realize that this is your way of saying “I lost and I’m pissed off about it”.

mr-cappadocia

i-am-dallas asked:

1) Marriage has been protected right for ALL people, and the Supreme Court has stated this many times since 1888. 2) If you are an institution or public service, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against people, regardless if your religion tells you it's okay. 3) Churches receive 5 billion a year in tax breaks, and so they ESPECIALLY should be forced to treat all people equally under the law. Religion does not trump the Constitution. You can check my "gay marriage" tag for links and sources

mr-cappadocia answered:

All the love in the world doesn’t stop the rain from falling and all the poetry in the world won’t bring back the dead.

The Constitution you’re citing exists at the pleasure of the Christian population of America.

No, seriously… if the Christian population of America up and en masse said “Fuck this shit” it would be quite legal for them to just amend the Constitution to one that allowed only the Christian faith to be practiced in America.

There’s not a fucking thing you or I could do about it.

The Supreme Court can’t, for example, strike down an Amendment, even if it flies in the face of past amendments.

The President has precisely dick to do with the Constitutional Amendment process so he can’t “veto” it or anything of the sort.

So even if the Christians of America decided to go the peaceful and legal route they could completely dominate you and there’s nothing you could do about it.

Or they could just rise up and murder the lot of us. Your “it was a business!!!” will make excellent last words before the rope snaps tight.

Further you seem to be forgetting *why* the Church receives tax breaks.

If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel’s nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that’s not just my opinion; it’s the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

But the real reason I suspect (and also the reason our American system has been as successful as it has been) is because at no time has the Federal Government been a threat to the Church.

That tax exempt status is an excellent reason for the Church to avoid fucking with society at large.

Because let’s say you turned around and started taxing Churches.

You’ve now changed the setup so that not only do Churches have a moral interest in government but a financial one as well. That will not end well for you.

In fact worldwide people are actually more likely to be taxed FOR CHURCHES than Churches are to pay taxes.

The Church of Denmark, for example, imposes a tax on its followers. An actual tax. The Catholic Church of Croatia does the same thing.

Notice a trend? Governments paying off religious institutions. This isn’t accidental.

You can say “Well, the rules as they are now…” but that misses the point.

Which is to say that it confirms the worst fears the rather peaceable Christian population in America, who are kindly not beheading you as we speak even though they could completely get away with it if they wanted it bad enough, have been stressing about for some time now.

A Christian might hear “Well, you might not like Gay marriage but Gay marriage really doesn’t affect you, does it? I mean it’s not like they’re forcing themselves into your Churches and prosecuting your Pastors for refusing to marry them, are they?”.

And the Christian, who seems to genuinely want to be a good person says “Okay, fine, I see your point”.

He won’t like it, at all, but the majority are reasonable people… but they’re still people.

Your rationale of “it’s a business” is the thinnest of justifications and so while it might hold up in a court room, it sure as shit won’t hold up in the hearts of those who have been hearing that the “gay agenda” was this very thing and suddenly it stops being a nebulous possibility and starts being a “You’re looking at a year in prison”.

Top 10 Denzel Washington Performances

I don’t really care much for celebrities or celebrity obsession, but Denzel is an amazing actor. He’s one of the very few actors that will drive me to the theater to see a movie, regardless of what it is. I agree with his tastes so much that I seriously doubt I could ever be disappointed. Without the presence of one of these few actors (less than 5), no matter the story, no matter who’s in it, I would not go to a theater.

Gay marriage is also a 1st Amendment issue in the U.S. because if the government were to say “It is unlawful to force a church to not discriminate against homosexual couples” then they are creating laws that respect an establishment of religion. Obviously they are forbidden from doing this. Anti-gay marriage views are not secular and necessarily require respecting an establishment of religion, and in particular, Christianity.