[quote]H factor wrote:
So you’ll assume they will go after disability, sex, race discrimination next to give rights back to business owners there? [/quote]
Are you or are you not a libertarian?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
So you’ll assume they will go after disability, sex, race discrimination next to give rights back to business owners there? [/quote]
Are you or are you not a libertarian? [/quote]
Absolutely. And I would support this move if it was not made simply because of religion. It wholeheartedly is made because we are in a state where that type of thinking can exist.
This idea that Kansas ultra conservatives push something like this because of the rights of business owners is so laughably bad. It has NOTHING to do with the rights of business owners with these people and everything to do with what they view is morally correct. These are the same types of people who flip the fuck out if it came out a business fired someone for wearing a cross. Yet they would actively fight against different religions like Muslims.
The double standard isn’t that hard to get. I would support it if I didn’t know EXACTLY where it was coming from. It’s not coming from freedom. They fight against freedom tooth and nail. The only freedom they like is the freedom they think everyone should feel like them.
“Freedom” is just the politically correct tool for their bigotry. To be consistent they would fight against any other protective class, but of course they won’t do that. They want to pick a fight they can win. Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with it. They are laughing their ass off that people buy that. These guys fight tooth and nail against freedom for business owners if it goes against their beliefs.
Freedom is only cool as long as people are making the correct decisions in their freedom to these guys. It is the exact same line of thinking that conservatives bitch about when progressives try to ban soda sizes.
This is the state government (which frequently is mad at the federal government for telling IT what to do) telling the people of an area they cannot make a law there because the people at the state government do not support them making their own decisions. They know better.
You can choke on this type of hypocrisy.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Absolutely. And I would support this move if it was not made simply because of religion. It wholeheartedly is made because we are in a state where that type of thinking can exist. [/quote]
So, you do or don’t support the move? You’re not like a progressive that is prepared to flip to libertarian in case of progressive utopia?
“I’ll vote for less government when everyone thinks the same, therefore, there is no need for more government.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Absolutely. And I would support this move if it was not made simply because of religion. It wholeheartedly is made because we are in a state where that type of thinking can exist. [/quote]
So, you do or don’t support the move? You’re not like a progressive that is prepared to flip to libertarian in case of progressive utopia?
“I’ll vote for less government when everyone thinks the same, therefore, there is no need for more government.”[/quote]
Of course I don’t support the move. Is that not obvious? Why would I support our capital state picking and choosing when they think freedom is cool and when it is not? Do they actually know better than the citizens of Lawrence in this manner? Or can those people make 0 decisions for themselves?
If they are going to be anti-discrimination laws for business owners why just in terms of homosexuals? Where are they at in fighting for the rights of business owners to fire Christians?
Oh…they don’t support THAT type of freedom. Homosexual discrimination is fucking cool as shit with them. Religious discrimination is probably cool if it’s against Muslims.
In summary:
We should not listen to the federal government because D.C. shouldn’t tell Kansas what to do, but citizens of Kansas cannot decide for themselves on things and Topeka SHOULD tell Kansans what to do. Federal government does not know best for Kansans, but state government knows best for cities in Kansas and not those people.
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course I don’t support the move. Is that not obvious? Why would I support our capital state picking and choosing when they think freedom is cool and when it is not?
[/quote]
So you’re for expanding the government until some future date?
Why would you oppose the move over discrimination, when the whole principle in libertarian thought is to widen how many ways to discriminate? Yet, you again, adopt the progressive position to narrow/keep narrow what is proper discrimination. Your libertarian position is to attack other such discrimination laws while championing against sexual orientation provisions. Not protect one until some future date out of a progressive “fairness.”
Your position is strange. Doesn’t this mean you want Catholics, in their own businesses and organizations, to have to provide contraception coverage since everyone else is mandated to?
Hey, if being able to fire blacks and the hearing impaired is also important to you, fight for it. But if your libertarianism depends on what Conservatives believe, or continue to believe, then that’s pretty screwy.
[quote]H factor wrote:
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]
At what level would you prefer to be controlled? Keep in mind everyone agrees there should be some control, murder law is the easiest example. So if there was only 1 level of government which controlled basic things like making murder illegal, where would you want it?
[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course I don’t support the move. Is that not obvious? Why would I support our capital state picking and choosing when they think freedom is cool and when it is not? Do they actually know better than the citizens of Lawrence in this manner? Or can those people make 0 decisions for themselves?
If they are going to be anti-discrimination laws for business owners why just in terms of homosexuals? Where are they at in fighting for the rights of business owners to fire Christians?
Oh…they don’t support THAT type of freedom. Homosexual discrimination is fucking cool as shit with them. Religious discrimination is probably cool if it’s against Muslims.
In summary:
We should not listen to the federal government because D.C. shouldn’t tell Kansas what to do, but citizens of Kansas cannot decide for themselves on things and Topeka SHOULD tell Kansans what to do. Federal government does not know best for Kansans, but state government knows best for cities in Kansas and not those people.
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]
H, it seems this IS allowing the citizens of Topeka to decide for themselves(on one small issue). Unless I misread, this is not saying that business owners have to discriminate against homosexuals.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
At what level would you prefer to be controlled? Keep in mind everyone agrees there should be some control, murder law is the easiest example. So if there was only 1 level of government which controlled basic things like making murder illegal, where would you want it?[/quote]
Not everyone agrees that private property should be controlled by folks who do not own it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hey, if being able to fire blacks and the hearing impaired is also important to you, fight for it. But if your libertarianism depends on what Conservatives believe, or continue to believe, then that’s pretty screwy.[/quote]
All I’m saying is if you’re for discriminating against gay people don’t try and act like it’s about freedom. You’re for the government picking and choosing who is allowed to be discriminated against. My position is not strange at all. Either discrimination is not ok for business owners and we legislate they cannot do that. Or it IS ok and businesses are free to make their own decisions.
The weird position is letting the government decide who can and cannot be discriminated against. Especially considering this is ALL about religion anyways and it is under the guise of religious freedom.
If my religion said I was free to discriminate against blacks and blind people you would support it just like you support the rights of Muslims in this country right?
All I’m asking for is a little consistency.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Of course I don’t support the move. Is that not obvious? Why would I support our capital state picking and choosing when they think freedom is cool and when it is not? Do they actually know better than the citizens of Lawrence in this manner? Or can those people make 0 decisions for themselves?
If they are going to be anti-discrimination laws for business owners why just in terms of homosexuals? Where are they at in fighting for the rights of business owners to fire Christians?
Oh…they don’t support THAT type of freedom. Homosexual discrimination is fucking cool as shit with them. Religious discrimination is probably cool if it’s against Muslims.
In summary:
We should not listen to the federal government because D.C. shouldn’t tell Kansas what to do, but citizens of Kansas cannot decide for themselves on things and Topeka SHOULD tell Kansans what to do. Federal government does not know best for Kansans, but state government knows best for cities in Kansas and not those people.
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]
H, it seems this IS allowing the citizens of Topeka to decide for themselves(on one small issue). Unless I misread, this is not saying that business owners have to discriminate against homosexuals.
[/quote]
Nick I’m not against the legislation if I thought it was actually about freedom. It’s ONLY because the legislation was in support of homosexuals that it came about in the first place. This is from a side that is wholeheartedly against business owners if it offends what they think businesses should do in regards to sex, gaming, etc.
I’m against this because of the double standard it represents. I’m not against business owners making their own hiring decisions at all. I just don’t know why some people think the government should choose who can be discriminated against and who cannot.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]
At what level would you prefer to be controlled? Keep in mind everyone agrees there should be some control, murder law is the easiest example. So if there was only 1 level of government which controlled basic things like making murder illegal, where would you want it?[/quote]
Who is arguing that murder should be legal? No one is.
This is a very odd Hobbes type argument to make though. You are against the federal government controlling people, but have no problems with the state government doing it? Why not have the federal government do it? You don’t like when the federal government does it, but you do when the state does?
I don’t get that at all. And before the tired cliche of you can leave the state, you can also leave the country. And for some reason I don’t think you’re turning over as many backflips when liberals are trying to control at the state level.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your position is strange. Doesn’t this mean you want Catholics, in their own businesses and organizations, to have to provide contraception coverage since everyone else is mandated to? [/quote]
Of course not and nothing I have said could make you come to that conclusion.
I AM NOT against the legislation on the grounds of businesses and organizations being free to do what they want. I’m against the legislation because it has only came about because this state thinks discrimination of the black and blind is bad, but discrimination of gays is ok. Again, they pick and choose.
And they don’t even have the guts to come out and say it, they use words like we just want religious freedom here. Would they fight if my religion was Muslim…oh yeah, and my other viewpoint was to be able to fire someone for being a white christian?
These guys would go absolutely nuts against that. And you know that is the case. They can’t come out and say it because they are spineless. If you’re for discrimination of gays as a politician just say it. These guys are absolute cowards.
At least you will say this is what I believe and not try and sugar coat it. I have respect for that big time even though we disagree on homosexuality. I don’t have much respect for these politicians who talk about freedom left and right when they don’t mean freedom for everyone.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your position is strange. Doesn’t this mean you want Catholics, in their own businesses and organizations, to have to provide contraception coverage since everyone else is mandated to? [/quote]
Of course not and nothing I have said could make you come to that conclusion.
I AM NOT against the legislation on the grounds of businesses and organizations being free to do what they want. I’m against the legislation because it has only came about because this state thinks discrimination of the black and blind is bad, but discrimination of gays is ok. Again, they pick and choose.
And they don’t even have the guts to come out and say it, they use words like we just want religious freedom here. Would they fight if my religion was Muslim…oh yeah, and my other viewpoint was to be able to fire someone for being a white christian?
These guys would go absolutely nuts against that. And you know that is the case. They can’t come out and say it because they are spineless. If you’re for discrimination of gays as a politician just say it. These guys are absolute cowards.
At least you will say this is what I believe and not try and sugar coat it. I have respect for that big time even though we disagree on homosexuality. I don’t have much respect for these politicians who talk about freedom left and right when they don’t mean freedom for everyone.
[/quote]
Alrighty H-factor. Thanks for the chat and have a good night. Been fighting a bit of a cold, and the Nyquil is making my head too fuzzy for anymore e-jawing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your position is strange. Doesn’t this mean you want Catholics, in their own businesses and organizations, to have to provide contraception coverage since everyone else is mandated to? [/quote]
Of course not and nothing I have said could make you come to that conclusion.
I AM NOT against the legislation on the grounds of businesses and organizations being free to do what they want. I’m against the legislation because it has only came about because this state thinks discrimination of the black and blind is bad, but discrimination of gays is ok. Again, they pick and choose.
And they don’t even have the guts to come out and say it, they use words like we just want religious freedom here. Would they fight if my religion was Muslim…oh yeah, and my other viewpoint was to be able to fire someone for being a white christian?
These guys would go absolutely nuts against that. And you know that is the case. They can’t come out and say it because they are spineless. If you’re for discrimination of gays as a politician just say it. These guys are absolute cowards.
At least you will say this is what I believe and not try and sugar coat it. I have respect for that big time even though we disagree on homosexuality. I don’t have much respect for these politicians who talk about freedom left and right when they don’t mean freedom for everyone.
[/quote]
Alrighty H-factor. Thanks for the chat and have a good night. Been fighting a bit of a cold, and the Nyquil is making my head too fuzzy for anymore e-jawing.
[/quote]
Good night man. Double that dose of Nyquil (;)) and get to feeling better.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Nick I’m not against the legislation if I thought it was actually about freedom. It’s ONLY because the legislation was in support of homosexuals that it came about in the first place. This is from a side that is wholeheartedly against business owners if it offends what they think businesses should do in regards to sex, gaming, etc.
I’m against this because of the double standard it represents. I’m not against business owners making their own hiring decisions at all. I just don’t know why some people think the government should choose who can be discriminated against and who cannot. [/quote]
I understand. However, nothing will be done for freedom’s sake in this system. We have rulers, not representatives.
Anytime a tooth can be pulled from the mouth of government, it’s a small win for those who oppose control/enslavement. Nobody has a right to the property of anyone else, so a business owner must be allowed to discriminate against anyone he wants.
Make the government stop protecting homosexuals from discrimination-maybe they will stop relying on government. Make the government stop protecting blacks/women/etc. from discrimination-maybe they will stop relying on government. Eliminate police/fire departments/etc.-maybe people will stop relying on government.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]
At what level would you prefer to be controlled? Keep in mind everyone agrees there should be some control, murder law is the easiest example. So if there was only 1 level of government which controlled basic things like making murder illegal, where would you want it?[/quote]
Who is arguing that murder should be legal? No one is.
This is a very odd Hobbes type argument to make though. You are against the federal government controlling people, but have no problems with the state government doing it? Why not have the federal government do it? You don’t like when the federal government does it, but you do when the state does?
I don’t get that at all. And before the tired cliche of you can leave the state, you can also leave the country. And for some reason I don’t think you’re turning over as many backflips when liberals are trying to control at the state level. [/quote]
Okay you didn’t understand the question so lets try again. You seem to be against both state and federal so…
- Are you in favor of any government at all? (yes or no only)
- If yes, at what level do you prefer to have the most control?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]
At what level would you prefer to be controlled? Keep in mind everyone agrees there should be some control, murder law is the easiest example. So if there was only 1 level of government which controlled basic things like making murder illegal, where would you want it?[/quote]
Who is arguing that murder should be legal? No one is.
This is a very odd Hobbes type argument to make though. You are against the federal government controlling people, but have no problems with the state government doing it? Why not have the federal government do it? You don’t like when the federal government does it, but you do when the state does?
I don’t get that at all. And before the tired cliche of you can leave the state, you can also leave the country. And for some reason I don’t think you’re turning over as many backflips when liberals are trying to control at the state level. [/quote]
Okay you didn’t understand the question so lets try again. You seem to be against both state and federal so…
- Are you in favor of any government at all? (yes or no only)
- If yes, at what level do you prefer to have the most control?[/quote]
A. Yes
B. Probably local, but I could easily be against something at any level. Especially when it isn’t consistent at all with freedom.
C. Do you prefer your state to make stupid choices more than the federal government because that is the level you prefer freedom to be fucked up at more?