ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

How "gay marriage" harms you

Remember when we were all assured that homogamy was about expanding human rights, not denying them?  Yeah, so it turns out that was a lie.
A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read "Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham."
So, we now know that in addition to being bad for marriage - in Britain a woman will soon no longer legally become a "wife" while in France women can no longer become "mothers" - we know that homogamy is bad for jobs and the economy. This is precisely why free association - or as its opponents call it, discrimination - is a Constitutional right.

It is a sign of considerable societal decline that such a fundamental human right is no longer recognized in the USA.

UPDATE: This isn't a theoretical matter.  It is a dangerous anti-civilizational abuse of human rights quite literally sweeping the Western USA:
A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday. Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her husband and is the business's principal photographer, refused to photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

The court held that "a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients" is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act "and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples."

"Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony," the court concluded, the photographer "violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."
This should make it clear that "anti-discrimination" laws are the foundation of human rights abuses.  They serve as justifiation for involuntary government-imposed servitude.

Labels: ,

218 Comments:

1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Crude September 03, 2013 4:15 AM  

Remember when we were all assured that homogamy was about expanding human rights, not denying them?

The funny thing is that 85% of the country, last poll I saw, supports the rights of people to not have to bake cakes for or take photographs of ceremonies they dislike. But the courts seem dead set on stamping that out.

I actually wonder how many gays or bis are in favor of this kind of nonsense. I'd love to see a poll of how many gays are in favor of gay marriage, for that matter. You'd think one would have been done - maybe I missed it.

Blogger Markku September 03, 2013 4:24 AM  

It is enraging, but on the other hand, the weeds have practically taken over the spiritual field. Christendom cannot afford much longer the lack of substantive personal cost for being a true Christian.

As C.S. Lewis said in That Hideous Strength, there was a time when you could live halfway between Satan's and God's territory, but in the end, the line will be drawn in the sand and you will have to take a side.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 03, 2013 4:25 AM  

People forget that you cannot have the right to choose if you do not have the right to discriminate.

Anonymous Difster September 03, 2013 4:51 AM  

Fork...done...

Blogger AdognamedOp September 03, 2013 5:00 AM  

Next up, the Church.
It was never about equality or human rights. And the sooner we take their methodology, amplify it tenfold and start using it against them, the better chance we'll have at saving what little remains of Western civilization

Anonymous Question September 03, 2013 5:36 AM  

As often as I have seen the snippy little comeback about how the constitution guarantees freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion this is a great opportunity to show off my own witticism about how the constitution guarantees freedom OF assembly and not freedom FROM assembly. And to bring up how stupid the idiosyncratic close readings people have of the constitution can be.

Blogger Rantor September 03, 2013 5:47 AM  

Why I want to piss on every car with a COEXIST bumper sticker. The left demands tolerance of its beliefs but offers none to others.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 03, 2013 5:51 AM  

AdognamedOp: "Next up, the Church."
-
If you agree with Mary Eberstadt, an attack denormalizing the traditional family already is an attack on Christianity.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 6:04 AM  

OT: in other news about the decline and fall of institutions, it appears that Elop's work is done. Most successful corporate double agent in history?

Anonymous Mr Green Man September 03, 2013 6:09 AM  

And they fought over whether the R- or D-brigade could claim the most credit for the creation of the public accommodation dogma that lets all this happen, so Glenn Beck could cry about how St. Martin would have been a Republican.

Blogger Markku September 03, 2013 6:13 AM  

Nokia eloped.

Anonymous Lucius September 03, 2013 6:27 AM  

Quote frim a story about churches reacting to the photography decision:
Justin Lee, executive director of the Gay Christian Network, a nonprofit that offers support for gay Christians, said he disagreed with the churches that fear “there is this huge movement with the goal of forcing them to perform ceremonies that violate their freedom of religion.”
Lee said, “If anyone tried to force a church to perform a ceremony against their will, I would be the first person to stand up in that church’s defense.”
LINK

The story is about churches changing their bylaws, which is good, since a church in NJ lost a similar case for denying access to a gay wedding on land the church owned. Yet the gays proponents like Lee can lie with a straight face.

Anonymous Rosalys September 03, 2013 6:51 AM  

So called "gay marriage" is a direct attack upon western civilization. The entire homosexual "rights" movement is a direct attack upon western civilization. Homosexuals would have the same rights - whether they be God given, natural or Constitutional - that everyone else has. They also have the right to remain silent. I their case it would mean that they quietly go about their business behind closed doors and call themselves room mates instead of partners. This has gone way, way beyond toleration. Now one must open affirm and celebrate such abominations or you are considered a hate monger. One must lie to these perverts and tell them that God loves them (which He does) and that He is perfectly fine with what they do (He isn't) and that He would never deny them entrance into His Holy Presence without repentance (He would, in fact He must!) It is my intention when asked to tell them the truth.

Anonymous kh123 September 03, 2013 7:05 AM  

So this is good news for Tad, since now we'll have something akin to Nebu's calling together of the people to worship when the trumpet sounds (or when all smartphones go off), complete with a seven story golden phallus to center everyone's reverence. Freedom of assembly, not freedom from!

Blogger Rantor September 03, 2013 7:10 AM  

Liberals, more Borg-like than rabbit-like... Assimilation underway

Anonymous Musashi September 03, 2013 7:16 AM  

The west is done.
Nations filled with retrograde vipers.

Anonymous Carlotta September 03, 2013 7:26 AM  

This has always been my concern regarding 501 churches. Quid pro quo Clarice.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 7:30 AM  

Question, by your argument, the government can also compel us all to run newspapers, force our political opinions out of us, and make us take part in protests--whether we want to or not, and then jail or fine us if we don't comply.

Think a little more next time.

Anonymous Ann Morgan September 03, 2013 7:34 AM  

Rosalys wrote: **One must lie to these perverts and tell them that God loves them (which He does) and that He is perfectly fine with what they do (He isn't) and that He would never deny them entrance into His Holy Presence without repentance (He would, in fact He must!) It is my intention when asked to tell them the truth.**

Rosalys, you'd be lying in the sense only that you would not be giving your honest *opinion* about what God feels or does. There is no actual proof either for or against God's existence, or his opinion of gay sex. Or anything else.

Mind you, I support your right to give your honest opinion, but don't confuse it with proven fact. For all you or I know, the ancient Egyptians might have been the ones who had their theology right, and the rest of us are all going to go to Egyptian crocodile hell.

At any rate, the question of whether or not a society will tolerate (in a legal sense) homogamy is a seperate issue from whether they require individual people to advocate it. It's certainly possible to do the first, without doing the second. People should not be required, in a free society, to advocate ANYTHING. This means, if they oppose gay marriage, they should not be required to bake a cake for it. It also means that if they oppose the Christian religion, they should not be required to bake cakes for the local church.

Anonymous Roundtine September 03, 2013 7:37 AM  

Truly, USG has become the new Rome. It won't be long now before Christians are sent to prison.

Blogger Markku September 03, 2013 7:39 AM  

For all you or I know, the ancient Egyptians might have been the ones who had their theology right, and the rest of us are all going to go to Egyptian crocodile hell.

Had you only said "for all I know", this would have been uncontroversial. But "for all you or I know" you are making a positive claim. You are, for example, claiming that Rosalys has never witnessed anything for which the overwhelmingly most likely explanation is Yahweh.

So, let's see YOUR evidence, then. Of perhaps you are only giving your honest opinion, being careful not to confuse it with proven fact?

Blogger IM2L844 September 03, 2013 7:49 AM  

There is no actual proof...

There are alternate explanations for just about anything you can think of. There is evidence and there are odds, but absolutely incontrovertible scientific proofs are practically nonexistent.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 03, 2013 7:57 AM  

Ann Morgan: "For all you or I know, the ancient Egyptians might have been the ones who had their theology right, and the rest of us are all going to go to Egyptian crocodile hell."
-
If the ancient Egyptians were right, those who meet Amam the Devourer, the destroyer of evil souls, will be those who promoted chaos and who are unable to recite the negative confessions, e.g. "I have not consorted with f***-boys."

For the promoters of "marriage equality" and other forms of social chaos, that might not be a significant improvement on the Christian after-life.

The de-normalization of basic concepts like the male sex, the female sex and (implicitly heterosexual) marriage isn't just repulsive to Christianity; it's repulsive to what C.S. Lewis called "the Tao", which has been upheld by civilizing religions in general.

The teachings of the ancient sages were not consistent with the Frankfurt School, and in the clash between Christianity and cultural Marxism, it's not Christianity that's the aberration from a long-term historical point of view.

Blogger finndistan September 03, 2013 7:59 AM  

Isn't britain the place where you have chinese food, arabic food, chinese text, arabic text etc etc, and the one guy who puts up "Operated by British" is in the news?

How much it must hurt the dead bones of the WW2 soldiers.

Blogger The Bechtloff September 03, 2013 8:05 AM  

Wouldn't a libertarian solution then be not to restrict gay marriage but restore the right of freedom of association?

Blogger J Curtis September 03, 2013 8:11 AM  

I'd love to see a poll of how many gays are in favor of gay marriage, for that matter. You'd think one would have been done - maybe I missed it

They're maddeningly hard to come by, Crude. From 2004 in Canada...

")--The majority of homosexuals are opposed to same-sex “marriage” and a few want to see the institution of marriage abolished altogether, according to an online poll of a homosexual-themed Canadian magazine.

The results of the Fab Magazine poll, published April 7 in the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper, found that only 36 percent of respondents believed homosexuals should “settle for marriage and nothing less.” A plurality, 47 percent, favored civil unions.

The poll, while not scientific, is significant because it took place in a country where three provinces have legalized same-sex “marriage.”

Fab Magazine editor-in-chief Mitchel Raphael said the results may reflect a rejection of monogamous relationships by homosexuals." Link

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 03, 2013 8:11 AM  

The Bechtloff: "Wouldn't a libertarian solution then be not to restrict gay marriage but restore the right of freedom of association?"

If you take Rand Paul as a libertarian, when challenged he decided he was all for the Civil Rights revolution and its legislation, which means there is no such thing as freedom of association in regard to race, and by extension no freedom of association in any area in which the politically correct are disposed to force full integration.

Anonymous Daniel September 03, 2013 8:11 AM  

Gay marriage is now a creature of the State. One libertarian response is to slay creatures of the State. Libertarians do not believe in State-certified marriage.

Anonymous LL September 03, 2013 8:18 AM  

Shall we go back to that post where Laughing for Losers said this is not an issue when I specifically pointed out this business and the issues related to it as defined within free association? Anyone have a crow for that jackwagon to eat?

Blogger James Dixon September 03, 2013 8:24 AM  

> There is no actual proof either for or against God's existence, or his opinion of gay sex. Or anything else.

There's nothing you will accept as proof. That's not the same thing.

Anonymous Putin September 03, 2013 8:26 AM  

America is so gay.

Anonymous cds September 03, 2013 8:29 AM  

"Libertarians do not believe in State-certified marriage."

So, do you refuse to get 'officially' state-married out of protest?

Blogger IM2L844 September 03, 2013 8:29 AM  

Completely on topic: Religious liberty and gay marriage collide as New Mexico photographer loses case

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 8:36 AM  

"So, do you refuse to get 'officially' state-married out of protest?"

many, if not most, do. yes.

Anonymous NateM September 03, 2013 8:40 AM  

So then, the cake is a lie?

Anonymous ZhukovG September 03, 2013 8:46 AM  

So, do you refuse to get 'officially' state-married out of protest?

Libertarians don’t just pop out of the womb quoting Von Mises, Rothbard, and Bastiat.

For most of us, particularly those like myself who went to public school, the conversion has been gradual. Also, like the Left and Right, there are different degrees to which libertarians ascribe to libertarian ideals.

I classify myself as a Minarchist Nationalist Libertarian.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 8:48 AM  

"So then, the cake is a lie?"

No... its a triumph. in fact... I'm making a note here... "huge success." Its hard to over state my satisfaction.

Anonymous Salt September 03, 2013 8:50 AM  

A cultural case comes out of NY -

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal jury has rejected the argument that use of the N-word among blacks can be a culturally acceptable term of love and endearment, deciding its use in the workplace is hostile and discriminatory no matter what.




Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 03, 2013 8:51 AM  

NateM: "So then, the cake is a lie?"

It is a coerced expression of approval, like applause for Stalin.

Blogger Joshua_D September 03, 2013 8:51 AM  

cds September 03, 2013 8:29 AM
"Libertarians do not believe in State-certified marriage."

So, do you refuse to get 'officially' state-married out of protest?


Knowing what I know now, I would have not gotten the state involved in my marriage.

Anonymous Scott September 03, 2013 8:54 AM  

In the spirit of agree and amplify, we need a concerted effort to shine the light on this practice of forcing Christian-owned businesses to serve homo weddings etc. against their religious beliefs. A couple of ideas...Find homo-owned printing shop, demand that they print offensive anti-homo posters (e.g. homosexuals masturbate in their own diarrhea)...Find vegan photographer and demand she film all day long your hog slaughter. The possibilities are endless...Then you need somebody with deep pockets to take them to court when they refuse. Problem is that if any conservatives actually did this, they would be endlessly denounced by other cons.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 03, 2013 8:54 AM  

Nate: "No... its a triumph. in fact... I'm making a note here... "huge success." Its hard to over state my satisfaction."
-
Over-fulfillment of the norm?

Anonymous MrGreenMan September 03, 2013 8:55 AM  

@Ann Morgan
There is no actual proof either for or against God's existence

But this isn't all...the atheist agitprop will quickly even challenge whether an actual man Jesus, a carpenter, Joseph's boy, cousin of John the baptizer, called the Christ by his followers, judged and condemned by the Roman provincial governor, existed, or that first century Christians existed, and weren't just some evil plot of an angry Jew Saul-then-Paul.

This is no different from "there is no proof" that the Trojan War happened or that Troy existed; it was just a fairy tale, a myth, a legend...then they found the place. This is no different from "Caesar Conquered Gaul", except people accept the manuscript Caesar wrote and told the world. This is no different from the belief that a Greek named Euclid wrote out the postulates of geometry and had a school at Alexandria, which you only know because some Arabs claimed that they had manuscripts from him, and passed them off with the legend of Euclid.

Human written and oral tradition, although susceptible to perversion and mistake, is evidence; historians use their own methods to determine the veracity of these traditions, but they aren't scientists - e.g. all sorts of little people nobody cared about attested to seeing the risen Jesus Christ; it is proof; it just isn't "scientific proof" - but, then again, I don't have scientific proof that you really exist as a corporeal human being, either. It's not that it's a high bar for decision making - it's a stupid bar for most of life, adopted by sophists in argumentation and immediately thrown out in how they live their lives. I might as well demand mathematical proof from axioms for all things and believe that Achilles could never outrun that damned tortoise.

Anonymous KGB September 03, 2013 8:56 AM  

@ Putin America is so gay.

Is not real Putin. Is GAY Putin, yes?

Anonymous Gay Wedding Cake Chef September 03, 2013 8:59 AM  

I stuck my penis in the gay wedding cake and the client got angry about it, saying "What are you doing! Why did you stick your penis in there you sicko?" And I said, "OK, so you see what I'm talking about now?"

Anonymous cds September 03, 2013 9:00 AM  

"Knowing what I know now, I would have not gotten the state involved in my marriage."

Maybe OT, but could you expand on this? I wrestled with state-sanctioning myself a couple of years ago and finally decided that the benefits (and acceptance from the in-laws) were worth it. Why do you now say otherwise?

Anonymous Peter Garstig September 03, 2013 9:01 AM  

Wouldn't a libertarian solution then be not to restrict gay marriage but restore the right of freedom of association?

You don't seem to understand: one logically follows the other. You can't have one without the other. They're the same coin.

Anonymous John Galt September 03, 2013 9:11 AM  

Burn it down.

Scatter the stones.

Salt the earth.

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 9:12 AM  

Doesn't Ann Morgan owe us a definition of "actual proof" by posting this nonsense?

"There is no actual proof either for or against God's existence, or his opinion of gay sex. Or anything else."

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 9:17 AM  

Over-fulfillment of the norm?

No. He does what he must because he can, for the good of all of us--except the ones who are dead.

Blogger Joshua_D September 03, 2013 9:18 AM  

cds September 03, 2013 9:00 AM

"Knowing what I know now, I would have not gotten the state involved in my marriage."

Maybe OT, but could you expand on this? I wrestled with state-sanctioning myself a couple of years ago and finally decided that the benefits (and acceptance from the in-laws) were worth it. Why do you now say otherwise?


I don't think the state should be involved in marriage. I don't like the idea of having to get state permission to enter into an agreement between me, my wife and God. I haven't really thought much about what state benefits I'd lose, but that is a good question. When I got married, I'd only been a Christian for four years and I hadn't really thought much about my political views. But then 2007 and TARP came, and I started paying attention to the state.

Anonymous LeeS September 03, 2013 9:28 AM  

Gresham is next to Portland, Oregon. When I left Portland a few years ago, the gay mayor was banging teenage boys in the City Hall bathroom. The majority of the public had no problem with his actions. Every recall effort failed.

Blogger tz September 03, 2013 9:35 AM  

Government ruins everything. Yet the church gave marriage to caesar forgetting our Lord said not to give holy things to dogs or cast pearls before swine - have we not seen the outcome?

Yet even worse was the twin abandonment of the protestant mainline church (the USA was and is that) of an abhorrence and bare toleration of divorce to accepting "no-fault", and shattering the link between the unitive and procreative aspects with contraception.

Either alone redefines "marriage" more profoundly than homogamy.

Taken together, they must try to defend "marriage" as a tenuous and temporary bond whose only purpose is to make sexual pleasure licit. That a marriage license is what makes it cease to be a grave sin or abomination.

Yet going back even before Christ (whose words were specific in all 4 gospels on Divorce - but quoting scripture showing it wasn't new), all the way up to a crack in 1930, but really until the 1960's Catholics and Protestants only differed on the margins. Now most Protestant (and many dissenting Catholic) marriages would be considered grave sin.

What Pope John Paul 2 defends in his Theology of the body is this beautiful integrated self-donation and mutual giving and life generating idea of marriage. That gives the deep explanation. But Humanae Vitae and Castii Connubi as well as Arcanum explained in simpler terms.

That is the bonds of Holy matrimony. If instead unholy matrimony is what is desired, does it really matter the particular flavor of unholiness?

Blogger tz September 03, 2013 9:40 AM  

I find even the idea that I need a state permit to engage in a Sacrament to be abhorrent.

Worry about straining at the gnats of speech restrictions, but you've already swallowed this Camel.

Two people can call themselves married or a cup and saucer, and that does me no harm if they don't force me to recognize them as such.

To go back to A Man for all Seasons, "Arrest him -he's bad"; "He has broken no law", "What about God's law"; "Then God can arrest him".

Anonymous a_peraspera September 03, 2013 9:41 AM  

Say what you will about the Left, but they always win. I mean, it's hard to argue with results.

We can complain about the Left all we want, but as long as they keep winning every time it just sounds like the high school beta whining that the football team captain is an asshole.

Blogger tz September 03, 2013 9:45 AM  

Peter Kreeft on arguments for God's existence

Blogger Samuel McNamara September 03, 2013 9:49 AM  

a_peraspera: What about the fall of communism?

Blogger James Dixon September 03, 2013 9:54 AM  

> Say what you will about the Left, but they always win.

You apparently have a very short time frame for your version of "always".

Anonymous Heh September 03, 2013 9:54 AM  

So, the gays want to antagonize the bakers -- people who will be alone with their food. That's pretty much like pissing off your waiter. Who knows what he will do once he is in the kitchen? If everyone at the wedding comes down with food poisoning, will the guests be able to prove the baker did it? ("Hey they got the E. Coli from the group felch at the reception, not from my cake.")

Not that I would encourage any food service professional to retaliate in such a manner just because they were coerced by the state.

Blogger James Dixon September 03, 2013 9:57 AM  

> Not that I would encourage any food service professional to retaliate in such a manner just because they were coerced by the state.

Agreed. Exlax in the chocolate cake should suffice.

Anonymous p-dawg September 03, 2013 10:01 AM  

Marriage, as it is practiced in the US, is a three-party limited general partnership between two people and the state. There's no religion in it, and no reason that religion should be introduced into it. Forcing a business to cater to protected classes isn't new, either. A business license is a contract with the state - you agree to follow all the laws, rules, and regulations concerning commerce, business, and industry in your state, and in exchange, the state protects the welfare of your business. At least, in theory. But there's absolutely no rights being violated when the state enforces a contract you signed. None. Don't want the state to tell you how to run your business? Don't run a licensed commercial enterprise affecting a public interest.

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 10:01 AM  

"I don't like the idea of having to get state permission to enter into an agreement between me, my wife and God."


So it's your contention that a marriage license is "permission from the State to marry"?

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 10:04 AM  

No. He does what he must because he can, for the good of all of us--except the ones who are dead.

Now there's no sense crying over every mistake, we just keep on trying till we run out of cake...

Anonymous Daniel September 03, 2013 10:05 AM  

So, do you refuse to get 'officially' state-married out of protest?

There are many ways for a libertarian to practically oppose state marriage - about as many ways as there are libertarians. Some libertarians shrug, jump through the paperwork, just as they do with their taxes and all other bureaucratic junk they oppose on idealogical grounds, because they know the game is rigged, and the fastest way for them to be mostly left alone for now is to accept a modicum of the dictatorship. After all, there were plenty of libertarians in East Germany who played the game well enough to avoid the Stasi.

Others marry in the church or private ceremonies only. Others live under common law. Others do not marry at all.

But you can't possibly be a libertarian and claim that state-licensed marriage is a defense of liberty.

The fact that different libertarians choose their battles in different ways should be no surprise. They are not a political block, but self-interested guerrillas in the midst of factions. That they should exercise their self-interest in a variety of ways should be only surprising to a few.

Anonymous VD September 03, 2013 10:07 AM  

But there's absolutely no rights being violated when the state enforces a contract you signed. None. Don't want the state to tell you how to run your business? Don't run a licensed commercial enterprise affecting a public interest.

Sure there are. First, when the state bans you from operating without the license. Second, when it doesn't disclose the terms ahead of time, or modifies the terms subsequent to signing.

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 10:08 AM  

What percentages of libertarians support homogamy?

I would say most. Which is why I say: "piss on libertarians."

Anonymous Harsh September 03, 2013 10:09 AM  

There is no actual proof either for or against God's existence, or his opinion of gay sex. Or anything else.

If you insist on strict empiricism for all your beliefs, you're going to back yourself into a logical corner fairly quickly.

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 10:11 AM  

If you got a birth certificate, your parents had to ask the State for permission for your existence.

Anyone who has a birth certificate is a slave.

(hence the only free man in America is Barry O.)

Anonymous JohnS September 03, 2013 10:13 AM  

@ sigyn

These points of data make a beautiful line, don't they?

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 10:13 AM  

What percentages of libertarians support homogamy?

I would say most. Which is why I say: "piss on libertarians."


Actually, most libertarians think it's non of the state's business.

Including prominent gay libertarian Justin Raimondo.

Anonymous a_peraspera September 03, 2013 10:13 AM  

"But there's absolutely no rights being violated when the state enforces a contract you signed. None. Don't want the state to tell you how to run your business? Don't run a licensed commercial enterprise affecting a public interest."


Wrong - if there is no way for you to conduct commerce and make money (hell, even to eat!) without the State license, i.e. you're forced to sign just to survive - then one might argue that it was signed "under duress" and therefore void.

"Nothing outside the State," right?

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 10:16 AM  

"Actually, most libertarians think it's non of the state's business."

Except they'd use state-courts to enforce claims made under "gay marriage."

Ooops.

Besides, I think you'd find 90% of Libertarian Party members saying it IS the State's business.

"prominent" <-- Mars has libertarians?

Anonymous Russell September 03, 2013 10:17 AM  

It went from the love that couldn't be named, to the love that won't shut up, to the love that has to be accepted by all at any cost.

Yeah, this is going to end well.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 10:22 AM  

Besides, I think you'd find 90% of Libertarian Party members saying it IS the State's business.

Libertarian Party != libertarians

Anonymous a_peraspera September 03, 2013 10:24 AM  

Samuel: "What about the fall of communism?"

What about it? Since 1989 the Left has continued to win every time. The fall of the USSR and subsequent events just prove that there is no way out until total collapse followed by dictatorship.

They have a pretty good system: When a law is passed that the Left dislikes, they just have a judge strike it down. If a law is passed that they like, well that's "The Law of the Land" and you all better get on board.

Blogger Joshua_D September 03, 2013 10:30 AM  

T September 03, 2013 10:01 AM

"I don't like the idea of having to get state permission to enter into an agreement between me, my wife and God."


So it's your contention that a marriage license is "permission from the State to marry"?


I'm not contending anything, but yes, it seems to me that a marriage license is permission from the state to get married." What do you think a marriage license is?

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 10:31 AM  

"Libertarian Party != libertarians"

No True Rothbardian fallacy coming...

Anonymous T September 03, 2013 10:31 AM  

contracts != permission

Anonymous cds September 03, 2013 10:34 AM  

"because they know the game is rigged, and the fastest way for them to be mostly left alone for now is to accept a modicum of the dictatorship."

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the last 10 years for me.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 10:36 AM  

No True Rothbardian fallacy coming...

No you moron, I'm pointing out that the Libertarian Party does not include nor speaks for all libertarians.

Anonymous paradox September 03, 2013 10:45 AM  

Daniel September 03, 2013 8:11 AM

Libertarians do not believe in State-certified marriage.


Unless you're a Judge Andrew Napolitano Libertarian and support gay marriage via 14th Amendment BS. Then compare gay marriage bans to laws banning interracial marriage, which were overthrown by the supreme court.

Anonymous Libtard September 03, 2013 10:50 AM  

They serve as justifiation [sic] for involuntary government-imposed servitude.
 
This is beyond silly.  It’s not government-imposed servitude in any way, shape or form.  No government is telling anyone they must perform x service, they are simply telling them that if they chose to perform x service, then they must offer said service to all citizens in the state and cannot discriminate.  Hyperbole much? 

Blogger Joshua_D September 03, 2013 10:52 AM  

T, what do you think a marriage license is?

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 10:56 AM  

Unless you're a Judge Andrew Napolitano Libertarian and support gay marriage via 14th Amendment BS.

The judge's judgment on this issue is clouded by his homosexuality.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey September 03, 2013 11:00 AM  

Do Homosexuals Exist?

Anonymous Susan September 03, 2013 11:03 AM  

They used the "public accommodation" clause in that statute to damage this photog business. I guess that means that Obama was right and those Christian folks really didn't build that business.

I can't wait to see the vibrant reaction to the link Salt provided. It's about time somebody took a stand about that subject. The only surprise to me is that it came out of NY.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 03, 2013 11:03 AM  

The freedom of association in inherent in the law in Western Civilization. Since ancient times, the law PROSCRIBES behaviors....the law prohibits people from doing specific acts....FREEDOM is what remains. If something is not prohibited by LAW, then it is permitted. That is what we call a free society.

The Leftists and the LIBERALS have turned the law on its head and made it into an oppressive and coercive device. Under the Leftists and the Liberals, the law compels behaviors.... it PRESCRIBES acts that must be done, regardless of religious convictions or social norms or whether it is profitable, or safe, or beneficial to the individual. Permission must be obtained in the form of privilege, to be exempted from acts required by law, thus we get the Chicago-style croneyism as practiced by the White House.

Anonymous Stickwick September 03, 2013 11:06 AM  

It went from the love that couldn't be named, to the love that won't shut up, to the love that has to be accepted by all at any cost.

Well said, Russell.

My dad once asked a prominent Canadian gay activist if he wasn't satisfied with all the progress that had been made towards tolerance, and the man responded that tolerance wasn't enough, he wanted to be celebrated. Doesn't matter if it violates the rights of other people, if it tears down civilization, it's all about what he wants. If there's any group in the West that's more self-focused than women, it's homosexuals. My sense is that this will all eventually backfire. People like Dennis Miller, who are normally laid back about homosexuality, are starting to get tired of "gay" everything. It's like a rubber band that's stretched and stretched-- at some point it's going to snap back.

Anonymous JartStar September 03, 2013 11:17 AM  

My sense is that this will all eventually backfire. People like Dennis Miller, who are normally laid back about homosexuality, are starting to get tired of "gay" everything. It's like a rubber band that's stretched and stretched-- at some point it's going to snap back.

See Tosh.O

He makes everything as gay as humanly possible and I don't know how many people get the joke.

Anonymous ODG September 03, 2013 11:18 AM  

If I were in any kind of wedding-related business, my product would have "Marriage = One Man + One Woman" on it. Every. single. time. They want my product, it comes labeled.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 11:22 AM  

If I were in any kind of wedding-related business, my product would have "Marriage = One Man + One Woman" on it. Every. single. time. They want my product, it comes labeled.

Why do you hate the polygamists?

Anonymous DonReynolds September 03, 2013 11:27 AM  

They serve as justifiation [sic] for involuntary government-imposed servitude.

Libtard...."This is beyond silly. It’s not government-imposed servitude in any way, shape or form. No government is telling anyone they must perform x service, they are simply telling them that if they chose to perform x service, then they must offer said service to all citizens in the state and cannot discriminate. Hyperbole much?"

No. Servitude is INVOLUNTARY service, ipso facto, which is constitutionally reserved for persons convicted of crimes.

The Protestant Work Ethic is that all works and endeavors, not just the clergy, is a calling from God and you have a religious duty to do that work to the best of your ability. For Protestants, work is not separate from faith and their calling is a religious duty. There is no secular workplace where there are no religious considerations. We cannot divide our life into a secular part (which is only about Man's law) and a religious part (which is God's law).

As for the ability of people to refuse business, this is inherent in ALL privately-owned business. They are not an investor-owned public utility, with a requirement to serve any and all customers. Tort liability alone requires that they be able to accept or reject work or sales that they believe would be harmful or dangerous or simply "bad for business". Small business has limited capacity for production so they must allocate their time and resources, hoping to keep their existing customers, while making new ones. Yes, we all have an inherent sign in the front window..."We reserve the right to refuse service".

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 11:36 AM  

This is beyond silly.  It’s not government-imposed servitude in any way, shape or form.  No government is telling anyone they must perform x service, they are simply telling them that if they chose to perform x service, then they must offer said service to all citizens in the state and cannot discriminate.  Hyperbole much? 

So...

If the westboro baptist folks walked into a restaurant owned and operated by a gay person, with a gay staff, you would force them to offer the anti gay folks a table and serve them?

If a KKK group walks into a black soul food restaurant, they should be served?

What if a vegan walks unto a bbq restaurant and demands a vegan meal?

Anonymous DonReynolds September 03, 2013 11:42 AM  

T...."If you got a birth certificate, your parents had to ask the State for permission for your existence.
Anyone who has a birth certificate is a slave."

A birth certificate (like a death certificate) is not a permit or a license. There is no permission to be born or to die. Both of these certificates merely record the fact (where and when, for example) of your birth (and death). A birth certificate may show whether your parents were married or it may show that the people who raised you are not your biological parents. A death certificate may indicate (and often does) if you died of natural causes or whether your death was a homocide. These certificates are mere records, not permission.

Anonymous EVP September 03, 2013 11:47 AM  

So it's your contention that a marriage license is "permission from the State to marry"?

Is English not your native language, T? Are you contending that "license" is not a synonym for "permission"?

Anonymous Libtard September 03, 2013 11:47 AM  

Josh, as long as we assume no one is being distrubtive, breaking any laws, etc… then yes, yes and no.  In both of the examples Vox originally cited, neither client was asking for a product/service that didn’t actually exist (like vegan food at the bbq pit).  The Vegan can eat the collards and pretend there’s not a pound of lard and a gallon of ham stock in it.   

Anonymous EVP September 03, 2013 11:49 AM  

Don beat me to it. When I got married, I didn't get a marriage license because I refuse to ask the state for permission to do something over which they have no authority. I filed a declaration of marriage instead, officially informing the community that I and my new wife had married.

Anonymous EVP September 03, 2013 11:50 AM  

If the westboro baptist folks walked into a restaurant owned and operated by a gay person, with a gay staff, you would force them to offer the anti gay folks a table and serve them?

We need some Klan members to hire black and Jewish photographers to take pics of their white-robbed, cross-burning wedding.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 11:51 AM  

Well...what if a man sexually assaults a woman who is a waitress...is the restaurant obligated to serve him (absent a restraining order, etc)?

What if a creepy guy always asks to be served by the same waitress and ogles her the entire time he's there?

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 11:54 AM  

Libtard,

Libtard...."This is beyond silly. It’s not government-imposed servitude in any way, shape or form. No government is telling anyone they must perform x service, they are simply telling them that if they chose to perform x service, then they must offer said service to all citizens in the state and cannot discriminate. Hyperbole much?"


Your thinking is essentially saying that anyone who walks through the door of a business can yell "jump" and the owner has to say "How high?" You are temporarily indenturing the business owner. How many small business owners started their own businesses so they could call their own shots and not take orders from other people?

The behavior of the homosexuals and others sending threats to the Kleins demonstrate just how nice, happy and kind they are. What a bunch of spoiled bitches. Hoping their children die because they won't bake you a fucking cake? Bake it yourself. Aren't faggots supposed to be good at cooking and kitchen stuff?

Anonymous Salt September 03, 2013 11:55 AM  

So it's your contention that a marriage license is "permission from the State to marry"?

Is English not your native language, T? Are you contending that "license" is not a synonym for "permission"?


Black's Law Dict. 6th Ed., defines license as "permission by a competent authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 12:00 PM  

Aren't faggots supposed to be good at cooking and kitchen stuff?

You really don't want to know where that handheld mixer has been...

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 12:18 PM  

Aren't faggots supposed to be good at cooking and kitchen stuff?

You really don't want to know where that handheld mixer has been...


It's okay, I just replaced the O-ring...

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum September 03, 2013 12:29 PM  

People here keep on mentioning the term "Christendom". I hate to break it to you, but "Christendom" is dead. It lies in smoldering ruins. If it were still around, the whole gay "marriage" debate wouldn't have even made it to the courts, let alone the USSC, it would have been laughed out of court, and the plaintiffs would have been told to go find a church that would marry them, and that would be the end of it.

Christendom is dead. Forget about it. If we're lucky, within a few hundred years, we might get it back. But for all of us, we're back to small bands of firm-believing Christians scattered throughout a Pagan world.

What people are mistaking for "Christendom" is really a bunch of "CEOs" as we at my parish likes to call 'em: "Christmas-and-Easter-Onlys". For the other 363 or so days out of the year, they're indistinguishable from the wider neo-Pagan world.

The sooner you accept that the West is now firmly back in the hands of Paganism (under the title of "secular humanism"), the better off you'll be for the coming decades of hardship.

Most of the Protestant denominations represented here are not prepared for dealing with full-on Paganism, I'm sorry to say. They were born within Christendom, and have never had to face a serious pagan threat.

I doubt most of the protestant denominations today will still be around in 100-175 years or so. It's easy to be a Christian in Christendom, its really hard when crowds of pagans are screaming for you to be turned into Meow Mix lion-food, or tempting your children away from you. You just don't have what it takes, I'm sorry to say.

Blogger Sam Lively September 03, 2013 12:38 PM  

In other news, my dad is being sued under the Alien Tort Statute for "crimes against humanity" for making a Bible-based case against the embrace of homosexuality in Uganda.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 12:42 PM  

"The Vegan can eat the collards and pretend there’s not a pound of lard and a gallon of ham stock in it. "

Oh really?

Then why did the muslims sue mcdonalds over lard?

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 12:46 PM  

Then why did the muslims sue mcdonalds over lard?

Because sharia?

Anonymous Fidgit September 03, 2013 12:47 PM  

Best solution I've seen for the photographer's issue, is to accept the job and use the opportunity for unabashed Christ-witnessing with all the guests.

Divine payback, as it were.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 1:00 PM  

Best solution I've seen for the photographer's issue, is to accept the job and use the opportunity for unabashed Christ-witnessing with all the guests.

Divine payback, as it were.


Excellent idea! Instead of having people say "Cheese", have them say "Romans 1".

This is the tactic I use at the airport. The TSA guy gets a Constitution lesson while he is ministering to me. I once had five of them gathered around me at the security checkpoint listening to me expound on the Constitution.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 1:03 PM  

Sam Lively,

Your dad wrote "Pink Swastika", right?

Blogger Sam Lively September 03, 2013 1:08 PM  

@Stg58/Animal Mother
Aye.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 1:37 PM  

Sam,

Your dad and my dad were bros from way back in the JBS. Tell him the son of the token Jew says hello.

Anonymous Libtard September 03, 2013 1:52 PM  

Then why did the muslims sue mcdonalds over lard?

If I’m not mistaken, they (they being vegetarians, not Muslims) sued because McD’s advertised that they fried their taters in 100% vegetable oil.  So that would be a poor comparison. Also, the Muslims jumped on the band wagon later because presumably, the unadvertised lard was not halal.
 
Your thinking is essentially saying that anyone who walks through the door of a business can yell "jump" and the owner has to say "How high?"
 
Sure, if it’s a store that sells some sort of Jumping service.  Otherwise, no. 

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 1:57 PM  

"Also, the Muslims jumped on the band wagon later because presumably, the unadvertised lard was not halal."

And what's your point? They no longer use lard... which means they taste like shit now... because of an idiotic minority's bitching.

Anonymous jay c September 03, 2013 2:00 PM  

And what's your point? They no longer use lard... which means they taste like shit now... because of an idiotic minority's bitching.

Fortunately for all concerned, they now taste exactly like what they are.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 2:07 PM  

I thought they'd used beef fat, not lard.

Should've gone to peanut oil, anyway. Peanut oil is awesome for fries.

Anonymous jay c September 03, 2013 2:10 PM  

OT: They quit using lard in the early 90s, I think. After reading a couple of articles just now, the recent mess appears to have been over beef additives, not lard, and prompted by Hindus, not Muslims.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 2:19 PM  

Yep, looked it up. It was beef fat, not lard. Lard is used by the Heart Attack Grill.

Anonymous FP September 03, 2013 2:24 PM  

The left is using this bakery case to promote a new 2014 ballot measure in Oregon to repeal the 2004 ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Last I heard they're still working on getting signatures. Of course, they allow "domestic partnerships" in Oregon, that was passed by the state legislature in 2008.

Blogger Zachriel September 03, 2013 2:58 PM  

Presumably, laws requiring store owners to serve blacks are also "the foundation of human rights abuses".

Anonymous geoff September 03, 2013 3:04 PM  

@Scott. has my vote for winning post

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 3:07 PM  

Jay C: Big yankee. Doesn't like Collard Greens with lard in them.

Quick! All the southerners who say they don't like collard greens chime in!

NASALT!

Anonymous jay c September 03, 2013 3:10 PM  

jay c: Texan who likes collard greens but doesn't eat anything with pork if he can help it.

Anonymous jay c September 03, 2013 3:11 PM  

Regioniss

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 3:11 PM  

But Jay C, pork's good. Bacon's good.

Anonymous Josh September 03, 2013 3:26 PM  

Texan who likes collard greens but doesn't eat anything with pork if he can help it.

Fag

Anonymous Sg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 3:29 PM  

heh heh heh

Anonymous jay c September 03, 2013 4:08 PM  

I need a mafia of my own to take care of these heathens.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 4:26 PM  

Minions are better, Jay C. Trust me. You have to pay them, sure, but they don't scheme to overthrow you.

*slips him a business card, whispering* This is the agency we use to hire. Tell them Walter recommended them, and they'll set you up.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 4:26 PM  

*Walter sent you.

I'm so slow this afternoon.

Anonymous righteous gobbler September 03, 2013 4:57 PM  

I have wondered why the Left has been able to advance it's agenda almost unimpeded as of the last couple of decades. I believe part of the reason is that the progressive Left is unhampered by ethics or morality. The Right so often comes across as being nieve and slow witted for acting as if the Left will respect the rules of the game just as the Right does.

Perhaps that is because the Right attempts to fight with a certain code of ethics while the Left has no compunction with lying, slander, back stabbing, propaganda, blackmail, and threats to achieve it's ends. Plus the Left has the despicable MSM to propagate the lies on a credulous mass of bread and circus consuming retards.

It's like a boxing match where as one opponent plays by the rules and the other opponent has paid the referee (the MSM) to look the other way as he drops his gloves and goes at it bare fisted. Does the honest boxer also drop his gloves and "descend to the lower level" or does he keep his integrity and get his ass kicked at the same time?

Add to the fact that the Republicans really ARE stupid and spineless and then throw McCain RINOs into the mix and there you have it; a recipe for defeat.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 03, 2013 5:00 PM  

The republicans are not stupid or spineless. They are the other half of the equation. They are in the game for power just as much as the Democrats are. Also note that neo conservatism is just as communist as the Democrats crazies are. This is why people say there is no difference betwwen the two.

Anonymous Mavwreck September 03, 2013 5:49 PM  

A question (specifically for VD, but I'd be happy to hear the opinions of the Ilk):

You state that free association is a Constitutional right. Based on that right, do you think it ought to be legal for businesses like these to refuse to serve a mixed-race wedding because their religion forbids miscegenation?

(Note - I'm not asking if you think such refusal would be morally acceptable; just if you think such refusal should be legal.)

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 5:52 PM  

"You state that free association is a Constitutional right. Based on that right, do you think it ought to be legal for businesses like these to refuse to serve a mixed-race wedding because their religion forbids miscegenation?"

Of course. We think any business should be able to reject anyone at any time for any thing.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 5:57 PM  

"Yep, looked it up. It was beef fat, not lard. Lard is used by the Heart Attack Grill."

DAMN YOU FAKE CHAIN EMAILS!!!

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 5:59 PM  

Horsewife 1
Alpha 0

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 6:00 PM  

DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT

He's gonna kill me when he sees that.

Worst. Typo. EVER.

Anonymous Anonymous September 03, 2013 6:51 PM  

REG:

"You state that free association is a Constitutional right. Based on that right, do you think it ought to be legal for businesses like these to refuse to serve a mixed-race wedding because their religion forbids miscegenation?"

You miss the point, free association also means the freedom to not associate. By requiring the business to 'serve' you force 'Involuntary service' on another person against his/her will. This makes the business the slave of whoever demands their service. The slave owner is whoever the government favors.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 6:54 PM  

"Horsewife 1
Alpha 0 "


ahem...

Housewife 0
Alpha 0

I'm not claiming a point. but I think we both know the deduction is reasonable.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 6:55 PM  

Also Sigs...

love ya man. lots.

Anonymous Rosalys September 03, 2013 7:01 PM  

To Ann Morgan - Speaking from a Biblical and Christian point of view, God says that homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals will not inherit the the kingdom of God. This is clearly stated in both the old and new testaments. So yes, if I told a homosexual that he is just a-okay, no repentance needed here, I would be lying to him.

Like it or not, western civilization is a product of Christianity. Destroy Christianity and you destroy western civilization. One only need look about at what is going on in the world today to see it. If you can't it is a result of spiritual blindness.

Blogger Conscientia Republicae September 03, 2013 7:45 PM  

The Kingdom of God is here on earth. If Jesus died for sins, homosexuality is one of them. The homosexual will Not experience any joy on earth due to his actions and will be in spiritual agony because of his sin. Before you lose your mind, Romans 1 lists homosexuality in the same paragraph as people who are disobedient to their parents and those who spread gossip.

Anonymous Harsh September 03, 2013 8:11 PM  

This is beyond silly. It’s not government-imposed servitude in any way, shape or form. No government is telling anyone they must perform x service, they are simply telling them that if they chose to perform x service, then they must offer said service to all citizens in the state and cannot discriminate. Hyperbole much?

What right does the state have to compel me to do business with someone I don't want to? If I only want to program for people with red hair, that is my right. The state should have no say in the matter. There are plenty of other people out there that are willing to program for blondies and brunettes, so they should go to them.

Anonymous Geoff September 03, 2013 8:15 PM  

see, Zachriel gets it! what part of "free association" in the Constitution don't these Oregonians understand?

Anonymous El Duderino September 03, 2013 8:49 PM  

"Yep, looked it up. It was beef fat, not lard. Lard is used by the Heart Attack Grill."

DAMN YOU FAKE CHAIN EMAILS!!!


Next thing you're going to tell me is the crust isn't the healthiest part of the bread!!

Anonymous George of the Vibrant Jungle September 03, 2013 9:03 PM  

Zechriel: 'Presumably, laws requiring store owners to serve blacks are also "the foundation of human rights abuses".'

An attempt at irony, no doubt. Nonetheless, it seems a good place to point out that there is no slippery slope here, there is only a straight-edge cliff. Once you accept the right-liberal assumption that it is not "fair" to withhold service from blacks, all the left-liberal abominations for gays and their shit-dipping fellow travelers quickly follow.

The right of free association does mean the right to not sell your house or goods/services of your business to blacks. There is no finely-honed logical principle that allows otherwise. Is that racism? TOO BAD !!!

Look, this is all just going to get worse. The only means of ultimately stopping it, is that the right of free association must trump any attempt at forced integration and affirmative action. Putting that back into practice legally and culturally will mean self-segregation... admit it and get on with it, because instead what we have now is endless destructive chaos.

Evolution does not stop at the neck. What we all need to realize deep down in our gut is that reality is racist. Differences have never been just because of economics, and it is more basic than culture, at least insofar as that could somehow be divorced from genetics. Accept it, and then stop feeling guilty over nothing every time a leftist attacks you with "racism" or "homophobe" over just being alive. Stop trying to furiously backpeddle with plaintive bleats about how some of your best friends are black or gay or fill-in-the-blank. There is no true liberty without the right of free association, period. There will certainly be no America without it.

If a leftist screamed "racist" and no one cared, would she still be a tyrannical sack of lies?

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate September 03, 2013 9:15 PM  

"We think any business should be able to reject anyone at any time for any thing."

Nate -100


When discussing the importance of government to a free market system, such as banning the use of toxic substances or to require special precautions in their use, to specify sanitary conditions in the workplace, OR TO ENSURE ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES TO ALL CUSTOMERS, is absolutely compatible with the preservation of competition.

Practicioners of Jim Crow, in particular Southerners, proved time and time again that their selfishness trumped "enlightened self-interest". They, with an unadulterated freedom to act individually, consistently chose short-term gain rather than the benefits of cooperation AND competition for the long-haul. The game, ultimately, was rigged.


John Harlan--"In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. "Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."


Freedom of association, my ass, when it comes to Jim Crow and its eventual "re-emergence".

Blogger Kristophr September 03, 2013 9:20 PM  

Lawsuit baiting behavior.

The professional victims probably turned down every overtly Christian business that said "yes, I'll sell you a cake or do the photo-shoot".

S sane people will need to never refuse service to protected classes ... they just need to learn to provide abysmal service.

Like completely out of frame photos, or forgetting to add sugar to the shortening in the icing. And then sue when they don't pay.

Blogger tz September 03, 2013 9:22 PM  

Aren't faggots supposed to be good at cooking and kitchen stuff?

Only on a wood stove.

I'm not sure about Judge Napolitano in that he makes proper distinctions. It might be merely IF the state creates something - call it civil marriage - then the 14th amendment says they must give equal protection. That does not mean it is licit or prudent, only if it is there, it must be uniform.

If the state is entirely out of marriage, then there is nothing to worry about.

This is the power and glory of libertarianism. If you insist the state must NOT intervene, then there is no argument about which side, to what extent, or all those other messy questions.

You don't have to worry about housebreaking a dog you never let into your house.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 9:23 PM  

...Well, I'm not dead, but...he's on the roof again, and I'm not allowed on the roof so I can't go up and hug until forgiven.

And it's raining. It's like the universe wants to establish firmly that I deserve the point deduction.

Oh well. G'night, all you.

Anonymous Sigyn September 03, 2013 9:29 PM  

One last thing:

Practicioners of Jim Crow, in particular Southerners, proved time and time again that their selfishness trumped "enlightened self-interest". They, with an unadulterated freedom to act individually, consistently chose short-term gain rather than the benefits of cooperation AND competition for the long-haul.

"If you don't do what WE think is in your best interests, we will make you do it anyway. That's what freedom is about: doing what you're told."

Blogger tz September 03, 2013 9:30 PM  

Over at the Volokh conspiracy they noted the passing of the famous economist Coase at the age of 102 and his important contribution.

One of the posts noted that not all evils (externalities) should be addressed by government.

The evil of the south was that GOVERNMENT discriminated - requiring abstruse "literacy" exams for suffrage that they only asked of blacks and not of whites.

Government requires equality before the law, or I would allow preferential treatment of the Poor (in the sense of public defenders) since they are in an inferior position.

To extend that to non-government is tyrannical.

That doesn't mean that discrimination, prejudice, etc. is not evil, only that it does not admit of correction through the state. If Catholics don't like it, let their churches provide the alternative. As long as Government cracks down uniformly on violence, theft, and perjury - no matter who is committing it - as strong as Saddam or even Stalin - but nothing more - I can't complain. Those three commandments are theirs to enforce. The rest are for the Church to try to fix.

Blogger tz September 03, 2013 9:34 PM  

Let me clairify southerner's "enlightened self-interest". If whites refused to serve or be serve by blacks, that would create an opportunity for arbitrage - someone could go there, set up a business, and it would be more profitable and have an advantage.

Except that it would be burned down and the owner lynched, and the government would do nothing to seek justice for either.

But now, the lynching and immunities are all there, but they don't discriminate on race, but are all at the federal level in the way they deal with citizens.

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 03, 2013 9:34 PM  

When discussing the importance of government to a free market system, such as banning the use of toxic substances or to require special precautions in their use, to specify sanitary conditions in the workplace, OR TO ENSURE ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES TO ALL CUSTOMERS, is absolutely compatible with the preservation of competition.

That's your opening argument?

Here?

On this blog?

lol

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 10:04 PM  

"When discussing the importance of government to a free market system, such as banning the use of toxic substances or to require special precautions in their use, to specify sanitary conditions in the workplace, OR TO ENSURE ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES TO ALL CUSTOMERS, is absolutely compatible with the preservation of competition.
"

This? This is what you're going with?

Collective rights trump the right of the individuals... because... RACIS?

Brilliant.

Really.

Anonymous Harsh September 03, 2013 10:21 PM  

@Shut Up, Nate

You have just waded into a fight you have no hope of winning, my friend.

Anonymous Anonymous September 03, 2013 10:22 PM  

REG:

"The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

Notice- "While on the 'PUBLIC' highway. This thread is about "PRIVATE BUSINESS" Not once has anyone defended the concept that the government had any right to discriminate. However, if you think about it, the Jim Crow laws are still in effect, only the race and sexual orientation has changed. You are moving the goalposts again.

Which is typical of Liberals. They can not debate a subject without twisting it away from the main point; because they have no ground to stand on. The Constitution ensures that every citizen is equal UNDER THE LAW. That means that the government can not discriminate. The citizens are free to discriminate. Under the Constitution the government can't discriminate; but, the citizens can. Only today, the government does the discriminating and the citizens can't.

Sometimes, I think that Liberals stopped at age thirteen; just when adult reasoning should start, it's stillborn in them. Understanding that there is a difference between, the government of the United States and the Citizens of the United States, seems beyond their little minds. Maybe it's the communism coming out. It's certainly not "Useful Idiots" when we put up the same sixty year old arguments.

Sorry about the rant; putting up with immature children gets wearing sometimes.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 10:32 PM  

This reminds me of a story...

See this one time I was in this titty bar in Memphis... and for some reason there was this dude there that just didn't care for me at all. I don't know there was some stripper that was sitting at my table talking to me and some of my buddies. Maybe he was sweet on her. I have no idea.

Anyway he comes up and starts talking shit... making threats. He's gonna beat my ass and all this. All the time he's leaning in further and further and further... making sure I'm paying attention to him I suppose... I don't know.

After a few idiotic rambling statements he stands up and takes a few steps back to show how impressed he is with himself...

Then he trips falls backwards over a chair and busts his head on a table.

I don't know what ever happened to that guy. He was still laying there when I left.

Anyway...

I don't know why I thought of that story...

Anonymous George of the Vibrant Jungle September 03, 2013 10:38 PM  

re Anonymous, government versus private citizen discrimination...

This is all good reasoning which I agree with. However, how do you counter the leftists' position that government licensing of private businesses for adherence to sanitation standards, therefore allows that same government to dictate non-discrimination for dissemination of goods and/or services? What is the principle that would still allow discrimination, self-segration, and freedom of association?

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 10:43 PM  

'However, how do you counter the leftists' position that government licensing of private businesses for adherence to sanitation standards, therefore allows that same government to dictate non-discrimination for dissemination of goods and/or services? "

How do you counter the position that since the government has the authority to outlaw murder it therefore has the right to confiscate private property?

See... it doesn't require countering. Its bullshit in the first place.

Blogger James Dixon September 03, 2013 10:49 PM  

> He's gonna kill me when he sees that.

You know that you can delete posts, don't you Sigyn.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 10:51 PM  

"You know that you can delete posts, don't you Sigyn."

STFU!!!!

YOU MORON!!!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING???

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too) September 03, 2013 11:00 PM  

“One of the posts noted that not all evils (externalities) should be addressed by government.”

Except the majority of citizens at various points in our history felt otherwise and took the necessary steps to combat that “externality”.


“The evil of the south was that GOVERNMENT discriminated--requiring abstruse "literacy" exams for suffrage that they only asked of blacks and not of whites.”

The people who elected their representatives in the South discriminated to maintain a significant economic advantage and political superiority.


“To extend that to non-government is tyrannical.”

The majority of citizens found it tyrannical for a segment of the population to be denied, at the very least, the opportunity to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.


“That doesn't mean that discrimination, prejudice, etc. is not evil.”

The type of discrimination and prejudice pervasively exhibited by the practicioners of Jim Crow was inherently immoral.


“The rest are for the Church to try to fix.”

Except not all citizens of a country belong to a church. And I think there is a concept called “separation of church and state”, perhaps you heard about it.


“But now, the lynching and immunities are all there, but they don't discriminate on race, but are all at the federal level in the way they deal with citizens.”

?????


“That's your opening argument?”

I don’t see you refuting it, Cochise.


"Collective rights trump the right of the individuals... because... RACIS?"

Historically, the elevation of property rights has been advocated most stridently by, and of course most to the advantage of, those who already possessed the property. In this context, freedom of association was used as a tool by individuals drawn by a common cause to deny others from competing on similar footing in the free market entirely--no access to credit, no access to rent a storefront, etc.

“Protection...against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough,” wrote John Stuart Mill, "There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.”

Any individual store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks during Jim Crow, whether it be out in the open or "down low", would have lost far more business among whites than he gained given the pervasiveness of white hostility toward blacks. There is little evidence to suggest this system would not have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change. Jim Crow was explicitly endorsed and enforced by the "consent of the people" for decades, which resulted in social inertia.

Indeed, a prominent libertarian, David E. Bernstein from the Cato Institute, drives home this point--"After the Civil War, both North and South, manipulated, changed, or ignored their preexisting common law to deprive African Americans the benefit of that rule. Similarly, courts that consistently invalidated minor contractual restraints on the alienation of private property nevertheless upheld ethnically restrictive covenants that at times barred most of the residents of a given city from purchasing encumbered properties. The refusal to apply a general legal rule because the beneficiaries would be African Americans was a violation of their right to equal protection of the law [and henceforth market share through open competition]."

The social mores of the South in particular, under sanction of law, had prohibited any large-scale notion of white business owners dealing with blacks solely on the "content of their character". The long-lasting financial impact (MACRO!) of Jim Crow on blacks is well-documented. Competition for goods and services between all segments of a society was non-existent.

Business owners get a license from the state in order to operate. They agree to follow certain laws. One of those laws pertains to outright discrimination. In reasonable instances, business owners are allowed to deny service to patrons. The color of one's skin is NOT one of those circumstances.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 11:07 PM  

"Business owners get a license from the state in order to operate. They agree to follow certain laws. One of those laws pertains to outright discrimination. In reasonable instances, business owners are allowed to deny service to patrons. The color of one's skin is NOT one of those circumstances."

oh I see.

Might makes right.

How amusing it is to see liberals fall back on that over and over again.

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 03, 2013 11:07 PM  

"I don’t see you refuting it, Cochise."

*sigh*

Very well...

"When discussing the importance of government to a free market system..."

FULL STOP.

Not only is government NOT important to a free market system, it is ANTITHETICAL to same.

The rest of your post is irrelevant in light of this non sequitur.

Blogger Nate September 03, 2013 11:10 PM  

Businesses get licenses... and in doing so agree to certain terms. Such as... giving up all rights to free speech and agreeing to be apolitical at all times.


Oh wait they don't?


But they could. Right?


or wait... The government can only suspend... some rights? not others?


I mean honestly we're not refuting much of what you've written because its so obviously stupid we don't feel the need. You have exposed your own thinking... so people can read it and decide for themselves.

Anonymous Harsh September 03, 2013 11:25 PM  

@Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too)

Historically, the elevation of property rights has been advocated most stridently by, and of course most to the advantage of, those who already possessed the property.

Boom, you lose the argument right there. For a right to mean anything it must be absolute and not contingent upon the condition of other people. I have a right to my property full stop, and it doesn't matter whether or not my neighbor "needs" something I have. When you begin to understand that simple truth you'll begin to understand why the philosophy of the "gimmedats" is so abhorrently evil.

Anonymous Anonymous September 03, 2013 11:49 PM  

REG:

" Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too)"

You dress it up in lots of words; but, it comes down to- The government discriminated in the past against blacks, now the government discriminates against Whites. The citizens get screwed in either case; but, that's all right because, we're doing the screwing this time. But, you don't get that do you?

You're the white knight, saving the world and making it right, and all the little children have to 'play nice because mommy said so. You had better look around, you're mommy is building a world much worse than anything the Jim Crow group could imagine.


Free association is when the government is not putting the shaft to anyone.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too) September 04, 2013 12:11 AM  

Nate can require his business to deal only with whites or males, or make Monday “sour-mash” days in which workers must bring in a bottle, or insist cubicles are NOT littered with Brazilian fart porn. If his employers do not want to submit to his rules, let them find employment elsewhere! The argument also goes that If Nate is too restrictive, he will not be able to remain in business.

Of course! According to libertarians, Alabama is not infringing on the worker’s right to that smut, nor is it infringing upon Nate’s right to interact with whom he pleases. He is free to do whatever does not harm anyone else. Well then, when all of the Nate’s in the world decided to coerce, I mean, pass legislation through their “might makes right” mantra to ensure their darkie competitors would be cast aside, securing their market share, they crossed over to an absolute freedom based on property rights which includes a qualified right to harm others in the use of one’s own property.


“How amusing it is to see liberals fall back on that over and over again.”

How amusing it is to see you fall resort to that label over and over again like Cheech and Chong smoking a J. Toke up, dude!


“Not only is government NOT important to a free market system, it is ANTITHETICAL to same.”

Free markets in the most rawest of forms have existed to the detriment of its participants; refer to the Guilded Age. Moreover, spontaneously ordered markets are not completely free of “distortions” by policy-makers, such as the enforcing of contracts, the rights and obligations of companies, the criteria that constitutes conflict of interests, etc. What, you think “Captains Of Industry” have worked or will work together to find common ground for the “good of the people” over the long-term? Please, nigga!


“Businesses get licenses... and in doing so agree to certain terms. Such as... giving up all rights to free speech and agreeing to be apolitical at all times.”

Where have you been? Companies are political and possess free speech! Ever heard of Citizens United?


"For a right to mean anything it must be absolute and not contingent upon the condition of other people."

If we freely exchange for an item. over which someone has absolute rights, perhaps we can have absolute rights over that thing. However, I am entitled to whatever has been transferred to me by someone who had legitimate title over it. The legitimacy of my entitlement is thus dependent on the legitimacy of the previous owner's entitlement. If he/she was not entitled to it, then the transfer to me, no matter how free, does not entitle me to it. Example--I buy a car from someone for a price we both stipulate. I am NOT be entitled to that vehicle if it was stolen. Likewise, there are exceptions to our "absolute rights", or at the very least, criteria to meet. Freedom of speech has several caveats, or conditions. This freedom is NOT absolute.

Anonymous Scintan September 04, 2013 12:13 AM  

Nate can require his business to deal only with whites or males...Freedom of speech has several caveats, or conditions. This freedom is NOT absolute.

You've already shown that you're an idiot. There's no need to keep proving again and again. Your first post was sufficient for the task.

Anonymous Harsh September 04, 2013 12:21 AM  

If we freely exchange for an item. over which someone has absolute rights, perhaps we can have absolute rights over that thing. However, I am entitled to whatever has been transferred to me by someone who had legitimate title over it. The legitimacy of my entitlement is thus dependent on the legitimacy of the previous owner's entitlement. If he/she was not entitled to it, then the transfer to me, no matter how free, does not entitle me to it. Example--I buy a car from someone for a price we both stipulate. I am NOT be entitled to that vehicle if it was stolen.

You are conflating rights with ownership and therefore are once again wrong. Try again.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 04, 2013 12:32 AM  

I am to refer to the "Guilded Age"? Is that the Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood, Mage's Guild, Fighter's Guild or some other guild?

You can't even accurately point to the age of government enforced monopoly known as the GILDED AGE. No wonder you can't construct a cogent argument.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too) September 04, 2013 12:33 AM  

I have a right to own or possess that car if I and the seller agree to a price for that car, unless that car is stolen. If that car was stolen, then I cannot own that car, because it belongs to someone else. They have the right to possess that car. Indeed, that person has a "right to their property full stop"!

Likewise, I have the right to express my work through art, i.e. my own creation, unless that creation was directly taken from another person's work. If that creation was copyrighted, then I cannot profit from that work, because it originally belonged to someone else. Of course, it has to be proven that it was directly taken; nonetheless, the example demonstrates that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Try again!

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 04, 2013 12:36 AM  

Free markets in the most rawest of forms have existed to the detriment of its participants; refer to the Guilded Age.

OK, lets. How exactly did the Gilded Age lead to "the detriment of its participants"? It was an era that saw unprecedented advances in technology, transportation, and industry.
And before you even think to start with the "monopoly" bit, remember that monopolies cannot exist without government. Why? Because CORPORATIONS don't exist outside of government. As I said, government is antithetical to free markets.

Moreover, spontaneously ordered markets are not completely free of “distortions” by policy-makers, such as the enforcing of contracts, the rights and obligations of companies, the criteria that constitutes conflict of interests, etc.
I never said they were. What I did say is that your premise was a non sequitur. Here it is again, in case you've forgotten:
"When discussing the importance of government to a free market system..."
Government is not important to a free market system. It is a detriment to a free market system. And by government interfering in the market it is, by definition, no longer FREE.

What, you think “Captains Of Industry” have worked or will work together to find common ground for the “good of the people” over the long-term?
Please name three "Captains of Industry" that were not heads of major corporations. You know...Corporations?

cor·po·ra·tion
noun
1.
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2.
( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3.
any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
4.
Informal. a paunch; potbelly.


Once again we see that government, in this case government-created entities, lead to abuses of the free market.

Please, nigga!

That horrible, terrible, raciss slur aside, your initial point is still stupid. Government is not important to a free market system, it is death to one.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too) September 04, 2013 12:36 AM  

"I am to refer to the "Guilded Age"?"

First, to quote VD, "The occasionally misspelled or omitted word in a comment is much less annoying than the semi-inevitable comment explaining the error which immediately follows."

Second, making a spelling mistake does NOT automatically render a argument "null and void".

Anonymous Harsh September 04, 2013 12:42 AM  

I have a right to own or possess that car if I and the seller agree to a price for that car, unless that car is stolen. If that car was stolen, then I cannot own that car, because it belongs to someone else. They have the right to possess that car. Indeed, that person has a "right to their property full stop"!

Exactly right. So given those parameters tell me why I'd be morally wrong to refuse to sell my car to a black man.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too) September 04, 2013 12:43 AM  

"I am to refer to the "Guilded Age"?"

First, to quote VD, "The occasionally misspelled or omitted word in a comment is much less annoying than the semi-inevitable comment explaining the error which immediately follows."

Second, making a spelling mistake does NOT automatically render a argument "null and void".

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 04, 2013 12:46 AM  

Shut up,

Spelling "think" wrong is one thing. Substituting a completely different word is another. The Guilded Age could very well belong to medieval times. Also, I am an asshole. Enjoy!

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 12:57 AM  

**Had you only said "for all I know", this would have been uncontroversial. But "for all you or I know" you are making a positive claim. You are, for example, claiming that Rosalys has never witnessed anything for which the overwhelmingly most likely explanation is Yahweh.

So, let's see YOUR evidence, then. Of perhaps you are only giving your honest opinion, being careful not to confuse it with proven fact?**

Fair enough. It's entirely possible that Rosalys DOES have actual proof of God's existence and what his opinions on gay sex are, and I'm simply unaware that she has such proof. In which case, let her present her proof publicly, or retract her blanket statement regarding God's existence and opinions.

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 1:06 AM  

James Dixon wrote: > There is no actual proof either for or against God's existence, or his opinion of gay sex. Or anything else.<

**There's nothing you will accept as proof. That's not the same thing.**

Well actually, there are certain things that I would at least accept as proof that *something* is going on other than the people who wrote the bible either lying or being mistaken regarding the existence of God and his opinions. For instance, a 3000 year old tablet made out of a pure, stable, transuranic element.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pals, too) September 04, 2013 1:28 AM  

"How exactly did the Gilded Age lead to "the detriment of its participants"? It was an era that saw unprecedented advances in technology, transportation, and industry."

Absolutely. It was also an era that saw unprecedented corruption by heads of company to ENSURE little or no government intrusion, which resulted in captains of industry from ruthlessly destroying competition, lowering wages, offering little worker protections, and facilitating dangerous factory conditions.

So much for your “free market”!


“Government is not important to a free market system.”



Depends how one defines free market.


“And by government interfering in the market it is, by definition, no longer FREE.”



Our founding fathers wisely thought differently. Thomas Jefferson (1816)--I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.


“Please name three "Captains of Industry" that were not heads of major corporations. You know...Corporations?”



Carnegie, Frick, and Vanderbilt colluded with one another to keep profits up at the expense of their competitors.


“Remember that monopolies cannot exist without government.”

Not quite. If one company develops or invents a new product that others can’t replicate or don’t know how to replicate then this company immediately has a monopoly of the market. Or imagine Nate buying the entire world’s supply of Donkey Dicks. He now controls 100% of global sales. Or one entity becomes so big it can utilize more efficient production techniques to produce goods cheaper than its competition, pricing everyone out of the market.

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 1:41 AM  

Mr Greenman: Some things demand a higher level of proof than others, particularly if we have no known, modern day examples of them. We have modern day examples of cities (troy), war(the trojan war), and mathematicians (Euclid). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that there could have been cities, wars, and mathematicians in the past, especially since there is concrete proof of such things having existed in the past.

There are no modern day proven examples of people performing miracles and coming back from the dead under conditions which normally would have been sufficient for irreparable brain damage to occur. So that requires a higher level of proof. It's rather as if I were to go to a town and ask them where the nearest McDonalds was. If someone told me it was 3 blocks straight ahead, on the corner of Maple and 2nd street, it's reasonable to suppose that they are probably telling the truth, because there are other McDonald's restaurants in the world, and that's a reasonable location for one. On the other hand, if they told me that the nearest McDonalds was floating 1000 feet high in midair, with no means of support (such as pillars, engines, balloons, etc), that's a much more fantastical claim, and I'd have to have a lot more proof of it than the say-so of even several people, before I'd believe it.

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 1:47 AM  

Greenman - it also doesn't help my belief that those who cite biblical proof of God's existence and opinions don't even follow all of the bible (such as verses requiring people to kill the children of prostitutes. If you want me to believe in a floating McDonalds, I'd best see both your feet planted firmly exactly where that McDonalds supposedly is floating. If you got 1 foot on the location of the McDonalds, and one on the ground, it tends to make me think that you are either mistaken, or have ulterior motives. Either way, either you are 100% on the floating McDonalds, or you aren't. If you aren't, that makes you no better than me, and you're just standing where you prefer to stand, and in some ways makes you worse than me, since you're lying about where and why you are standing where you are.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 04, 2013 3:08 AM  

Shut Up, Nate. You never learn.

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 3:40 AM  

Rosalys wrote: **Like it or not, western civilization is a product of Christianity. Destroy Christianity and you destroy western civilization. One only need look about at what is going on in the world today to see it. If you can't it is a result of spiritual blindness.**

Rosalys, here's the deal. Any religion that claims to speak for God needs to be 100% correct, all the time, on anything it says that can ever be proven or disproven. Christianity failed that test when it persecuted Galileo. Galileo was right, the church was wrong. End of story. Christianity therefore does not speak for an infallable, omniscient God. And if they were wrong about something relatively simple, like how planets move, then they could easily be wrong about other things. Like God's opinion of homosexuality.

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 3:40 AM  

Rosalys wrote: **Like it or not, western civilization is a product of Christianity. Destroy Christianity and you destroy western civilization. One only need look about at what is going on in the world today to see it. If you can't it is a result of spiritual blindness.**

Rosalys, here's the deal. Any religion that claims to speak for God needs to be 100% correct, all the time, on anything it says that can ever be proven or disproven. Christianity failed that test when it persecuted Galileo. Galileo was right, the church was wrong. End of story. Christianity therefore does not speak for an infallable, omniscient God. And if they were wrong about something relatively simple, like how planets move, then they could easily be wrong about other things. Like God's opinion of homosexuality.

Blogger Ann Morgan September 04, 2013 3:41 AM  

Greenman - it also doesn't help my belief that those who cite biblical proof of God's existence and opinions don't even follow all of the bible (such as verses requiring people to kill the children of prostitutes. If you want me to believe in a floating McDonalds, I'd best see both your feet planted firmly exactly where that McDonalds supposedly is floating. If you got 1 foot on the location of the McDonalds, and one on the ground, it tends to make me think that you are either mistaken, or have ulterior motives. Either way, either you are 100% on the floating McDonalds, or you aren't. If you aren't, that makes you no better than me, and you're just standing where you prefer to stand, and in some ways makes you worse than me, since you're lying about where and why you are standing where you are.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 04, 2013 3:49 AM  

Christianity failed that test when it persecuted Galileo. Galileo was right, the church was wrong. End of story.

C'mon, Morgan. You can't be that stupid.

Anonymous ericcs September 04, 2013 3:58 AM  

As a trad conservative, I'm sitting back watching the fur fly between both sides (Nate & etc. versus Shut-up Nate & etc.). I'm assuming that the former represents the libertarian ethos and the latter represents the leftists. So far, I see a lot of abrupt take-it-or-leave-it theory from the libertarians, and the normal thinly-veiled totalitarianism from the left.

Unfortunately, I do not see any knockdowns by libertarians of leftist positions, nor unassailable logic nor operative philisophical guidelines that are better than nice theory. Believe me, I'm really disappointed that libertarians are not winning here.

I guess back in the real world, it all reduces down to Lenin's "Who.. whom?"

Anonymous Toby Temple September 04, 2013 4:03 AM  

Unfortunately, I do not see any knockdowns by libertarians of leftist positions, nor unassailable logic nor operative philisophical guidelines that are better than nice theory.

Really? Leftist positions not getting knocked down?

The fact the leftist refer to corporations when talking about free markets is already a guaranteed knockout of their position.

Anonymous ericcs September 04, 2013 4:20 AM  

So how does the real world REALLY have free markets? How does the real world REALLY handle (or even allow to exist) corporations? Believe me (or not), I detest big anything including big government, but government is a necessary evil, which is why it needs to be strictly circumscribed and minimized at all times.

I don't think libertarians make their case very well as applied to the real world. Granted, that is just my opinion, of which the world has far too many. However, I have yet to see a libertarian acknowledge that their philisophical underpinnings can realistically work without a proper venue already in extent, i.e., libertarian assumptions implicitly require a moral people with an IQ above 110 and already wedded to a fully functioning set of classically liberal traditions. To put it in gross terms, libertarians have yet to demonstrate that they have come to grips with the "chicken-or-egg-which-came-first" question.

As a gamma male, I shy away from being argumentative, and I simply want to apply theory to reality. However, I will try my best to keep up this end of the conversation. If you can respond to any of the above, thank you.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 04, 2013 4:45 AM  

So how does the real world REALLY have free markets?

Are you saying that you think there is no such a thing as a free market today?

One can readily observe that the buying and selling of gold and silver operates in a free market.

How does the real world REALLY handle (or even allow to exist) corporations?

That the entrepreneur, or groups of entrepreneurs, gain advantage over its competitors through government manipulation. That is the corporation.

Believe me (or not), I detest big anything including big government, but government is a necessary evil, which is why it needs to be strictly circumscribed and minimized at all times.

And how does that differ from libertarianism, a political- philosophical position that wants governments to be small? It can then be assumed that your position differ with libertarians on just "how small".

I don't think libertarians make their case very well as applied to the real world.

That claim can only be made if one has a very small understanding of the roots of the libertarian ideology. Libertarianism is the only political-philosophical position that understands human nature and how to make it work for the civilization. Leftists ideologies seek to re-engineer such nature to the detriment of civilization.

Granted, that is just my opinion, of which the world has far too many. However, I have yet to see a libertarian acknowledge that their philisophical underpinnings can realistically work without a proper venue already in extent, i.e., libertarian assumptions implicitly require a moral people with an IQ above 110 and already wedded to a fully functioning set of classically liberal traditions. To put it in gross terms, libertarians have yet to demonstrate that they have come to grips with the "chicken-or-egg-which-came-first" question.

This is completely false. Ron Paul is one libertarian who understands that the people's view on how governments should function is key in making significant government changes. That is why he is also using his presidential campaigns trying to educate the masses. This is also due to the fact the Ron Paul lived through the changes that lead to the US government's current size.

Anonymous ericcs September 04, 2013 4:45 AM  

Uhhh, it's getting to be dinner time in my part of the world... time for a burger (ห้า ห้า ห้า). My responses to your considered opinions will have to wait until later.

Anonymous ericcs September 04, 2013 4:53 AM  

Free market today? No, it does not exist. Gold and silver are certainly FREER markets, but they still are constrained in some form by various governments. Also, gold and silver are not now that important in their effects on people's economic lives.

I get from libertarians that government should be nonexistent, not just small. Discussing degrees of smallness would appear to be a lose-lose proposition, unless & until it is butressed by real-world examples that themselves are guided by realistic principles.

If Ron Paul needs to educate the masses, then he's got his work cut out for him. MPAI and etc. And need we state that in the real world, leftists control the educational establishment from top to bottom.

(Disregard the dinner thing, I'm still here.)

Anonymous Toby Temple September 04, 2013 5:17 AM  

Free market today? No, it does not exist.

Clearly false. Free markets exist today. They are commonly called black markets.

Gold and silver are certainly FREER markets, but they still are constrained in some form by various governments. Also, gold and silver are not now that important in their effects on people's economic lives.

Again, wrong. The gold and silver trade operates in a free market. The constrains that you are talking about are imposed by the buyer's and trader's respective locations.

I get from libertarians that government should be nonexistent, not just small.

Clearly you are wrong. It is anarchists that demand zero government.

Discussing degrees of smallness would appear to be a lose-lose proposition, unless & until it is butressed by real-world examples that themselves are guided by realistic principles.

That is like saying the Internet would not have thrived without guidance from "realistic" principles.

You have to understand the FACT that markets were free for thousands of years. There was no regulations on the Silk Road.

Just because there are so many market regulations now does not necessarily follow that it is a must for markets to function properly.

If Ron Paul needs to educate the masses, then he's got his work cut out for him. MPAI and etc.

And yet leftists succeeded in getting the government they wanted despite MPAI. Libertarians can do the same.

And need we state that in the real world, leftists control the educational establishment from top to bottom.

You are conflating real word with current world. Nothing is permanent in the real world, but change.

Blogger Markku September 04, 2013 7:08 AM  

Jim Crow doesn't apply here. They served homosexuals all the time. They just wouldn't make a cake for a same-sex marriage, because they recognized that it is a morally vile thing and participating in it would have been giving assent to it and therefore also a sin. But it would have been THEIR sin. And I mean, they would have genuinely sinned, not just perceived it as such.

The final line has been crossed, and the state demands that Christians spit in God's face. Every Christian should start thinking about going underground and building a network. Because things will proceed fast.

Blogger Markku September 04, 2013 7:18 AM  

Everyone should also consider if their job is one in which Satan's first wave of attack is likely to be directed against. If it is, then consider if cowardice is one of your besetting sins. It is mine.

So, if it is, take pre-emptive measures. For example in this case, make a no weddings policy. But if it isn't, then the better thing is to put up a resistance when it comes. Vocally refuse to sin, even though you know what will follow.

Christians will see it, and they will know that you are a true Christian when it becomes very important to know that.

Blogger Nate September 04, 2013 8:19 AM  

"Unfortunately, I do not see any knockdowns by libertarians of leftist positions, nor unassailable logic nor operative philisophical guidelines that are better than nice theory."

Mate... the liberal has argued that because the government can do something it can therefore do something else that is entirely unrelated.

You can't argue that business licenses grant power to people who don't accept government power to licenses businesses. And you can not argue that granting someone the authority to do X automatically grants them the authority to do Y which is completely unrelated.

Telling a cop he can search your house does not give him permission to take a blood sample.

Anonymous WinstonWebb September 04, 2013 8:46 AM  

Absolutely. It was also an era that saw unprecedented corruption by heads of company to ENSURE little or no government intrusion, which resulted in captains of industry from ruthlessly destroying competition, lowering wages, offering little worker protections, and facilitating dangerous factory conditions.

Regarding the bolded section, a weak attempt at sleight-of-hand. Substituting the word "company" when we all know it means "corporation". Corporations do not, can not, exist without government. Do these same government-created entities lobby those in government to protect their interests and punish their competition? OF COURSE THEY DO! If these corporations had not existed, then these atrocities that have you in such a tizzy would never have happened.

Depends how one defines free market.
Fortunately, we don't have to subscribe to your subjective opinion (or mine, for that matter):
free market
— n
a. an economic system that allows supply and demand to regulate prices, wages, etc, rather than government policy
b. ( as modifier ): a free-market economy



“And by government interfering in the market it is, by definition, no longer FREE.”


Our founding fathers wisely thought differently. Thomas Jefferson (1816)--I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.


This does not support your point. It supports mine. Jefferson feared the influence of aristocrats and their government-created institutions. Commonly known as "corporations".

“Please name three "Captains of Industry" that were not heads of major corporations. You know...Corporations?”


Carnegie, Frick, and Vanderbilt colluded with one another to keep profits up at the expense of their competitors.


Carnegie - U.S. Steel
Frick - also U.S. Steel
Vanderbilt - New York City Rail Road

The latter I'm not sure was incorporated, so you are hitting 33%.

Not quite. If one company develops or invents a new product that others can’t replicate or don’t know how to replicate then this company immediately has a monopoly of the market. Or imagine Nate buying the entire world’s supply of Donkey Dicks. He now controls 100% of global sales. Or one entity becomes so big it can utilize more efficient production techniques to produce goods cheaper than its competition, pricing everyone out of the market.

There are -0- real world examples of this phenomenon that do not involve heavy influence from government policy.

Anonymous Harsh September 04, 2013 9:34 AM  

Not quite. If one company develops or invents a new product that others can’t replicate or don’t know how to replicate then this company immediately has a monopoly of the market. Or imagine Nate buying the entire world’s supply of Donkey Dicks. He now controls 100% of global sales. Or one entity becomes so big it can utilize more efficient production techniques to produce goods cheaper than its competition, pricing everyone out of the market.

Appeal to extremes. Ridiculous examples don't prove your point.

1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts