PJdude1219 said:
your a libertarian aren't you?
The libertarian version of this argument reminds me of Creationism. Remember how they couldn't push religion in the schools, so they just changed all the terms to Intelligent Design? In the end, it still isn't anything other than a belief system, and if that is the realm of basic education we might as well include classes on veterinary care with especial focus on basilisk grooming, unicorn shoeing, optometry for one-eyed one-horned rotten purple people eaters, and dentistry for Traalian bugblatters.
Our neighbor is putting up one of those experimental arguments, looking for a foothold in order to pose as rational while making an irrational argument. Notice how he's trying to reserve the public square―
i.e., publicly-licensed businesses―to the privacy of domicile:
"If the 'public sphere' also includes my private rooms ....".
And notice how general he stays. Rather, I can't recall the last time anybody ever got pregnant from baking a cake.
Also, note the argumentative style;
it makes no sense:
"The problem with the partnership is simply that the state - means with taxpayers money, including gay taxpayers - supports families. But possibly not gay partnerships. This is IMHO the problem - there should be no such support. Supporting particular ways of life financially is something which should be left to religious organizations."
Now, here's the thing;
this is what he was responding to:
For many Christians, the prospect of equality is horrifying. Why? Because they are losing privilege. The expectation that they should be merely equal to their neighbors is argued as a violation of their equality.
Besides, this religious freedom thing is now to the point that Texas is preparing to protect those who force child victims of sexual abuse to carry pregnancies. So ... no, I just don't buy all that deliberately dishonest bullshit about religious freedom empowering discrimnation.
So, yeah, go back and read that resposne again.
And then all of this self-justifying grandeur; he's just pissed that his side is losing, and is scrabbling around for some sort of pretense of victimhood.
But this libertarian pretense is
clearly ill-conceived.
He is advocating the ability to
harm other people for the sake of religious conscience.
And the thing is that I've been hearing this argument in my own lifetime at least since the heavy metal wars, when the object was to censor bands in the marketplace for the sake of religious conscience. I mean, sure, it has existed for a long time, but that's when I came across it, during the heavy metal wars. In order for the Christian to be equal, someone else must be suppressed. And, hell, that's actually where the current arc of the Gay Fray begins.
Heather Has Two Mommies. That's where it started. It all came down to a Christian's First Amendment rights being violated if someone else wasn't censored.
And that's where I came into contact with this political fight. In Oregon, 1992. At the invitation of Christians who wanted me to approve not only censorship but outright ostracism. As with the
music, or the books that offended Christians by talking about things like magic―seriously?
A Wrinkle In Time for being communist and anti-religious?―I made my decision. And in truth, I'm stunned that it comes to this. But here we are, and we couldn't have come this far without these zealots driving the fight. Raise a glass.
No, really, 1992 was Oregon and Colorado. Oregon lost at the ballot box and Colorado in court. And it's been on ever since, a continuous arc of ballot measures and legal fights that lead to this. What they said they feared back then they have ushered in by their zeal.
And this is what we're back to:
The right to hurt another person for the sake of religious conscience. It's the same as it ever was.
In a way, that's kind of comforting. It's all they have left, because it is all they ever had. This one is almost over.
