That's what a theocracy is dumbass. And people worry about Shariah with dummies ike this roaming around.

Imposing one's brand on religion on everyone else...nope, no theocratic intent, there.

9_9

Stupid bigot.

I must have missed the "we want Christianity to be the law", is that in another clip?

"We can't avoid telling people how they ought to treat one another"...sounds eerily familiar to the arguments I continually get from people when discussing the proper role of the federal government.

The Founding Fathers disapprove.

re: #3 RogueOne

What do you think the laws regarding 'morality' this guy wants put in place are sourced from?

Do you see any difference in a law saying that gay people have equal rights under the law to one saying they have fewer rights?

re: #5 Obdicut

I believe the constitution says they (homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

We've had this argument before, the left wants to legislate behavior based on their determination of morality/health just like the right. Don't pretend one side is better than the other strictly because one side uses Jesus as an argument.

re: #6 RogueOne

I believe the constitution says they (homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Great.

And people like Turek want to legislate fewer rights for homosexuals, because they want to base law off of religion.

We've had this argument before, the left wants to legislate behavior based on their determination of morality/health just like the right. Don't pretend one side is better than the other strictly because one side uses Jesus as an argument.

I fully believe that you think this is true. However, you also believe that a store should be able to ban black people from shopping there, so your grasp of this topic is rather weak.

It is rather obviously true that the enormous amount of morality legislation from the right-- from what days you can shop on to who you can have sex with to who can adopt to who can get married, to constrains on abortion to restrains on voting rights-- that the religiously-motivated GOP are far more restrictive than the 'left', most of whose initiatives-- like the CFC lightbulbs cited above-- are for pragmatic reasons, not moral ones. They may be mistaken-- in fact, they often are-- but the majority of the legislation from the left on behavior is based on a concept of utilitarianism and pragmatism, not morality.

re: #7 Obdicut

You must have more information than I do. I've never heard of the guy but I didn't see him say he wants to outlaw homosexuality in that clip.

I fully believe that you think this is true. However, you also believe that a store should be able to ban black people from shopping there, so your grasp of this topic is rather weak.

Actually, you're mistaken again. My grasp is fine. We've already added a ton of laws and a constitutional amendment that says that is illegal. The question is "should it be?". My answer is based on the assumption that people have the right to associate with whomever they choose whether I like it or not. Your answer is based on the idea that the government has the right to force people to behave in a way in which you agree. Where exactly does that kind of behavior (forcing your morality on others) end? Let me give you a hint, it doesn't. As long as the majority is allowed to force the minority to behave in whatever their definition of "morality" seems to be at the moment we'll continue to dilute our rights.

If you want to stop people from legislating behavior based on their version of morality then you have to oppose them all including the ones you might agree with. You can't say some are ok and some aren't.

re: #8 RogueOne

You must have more information than I do. I've never heard of the guy but I didn't see him say he wants to outlaw homosexuality in that clip.

Do you realize that when you play dumb it makes you look dumb?

Actually, you're mistaken again. My grasp is fine. We've already added a ton of laws and a constitutional amendment that says that is illegal. The question is "should it be?". My answer is based on the assumption that people have the right to associate with whomever they choose whether I like it or not.

Yes, Rogue. I really am very familiar with your and Rand Paul's line of logic that says that people should be allowed to discriminate against black people in hiring them, letting them shop at their stores, live in their buildings, etc. You don't need to type it out every time.

As long as the majority is allowed to force the minority to behave in whatever their definition of "morality" seems to be at the moment we'll continue to dilute our rights.

Do you get the slightest 'boy am I fucking up right now' when you talk about stopping people from banning black people from shopping at their stores as the majority forcing the minority into doing something? Like, a little twinge at all?

If you want to stop people from legislating behavior based on their version of morality then you have to oppose them all including the ones you might agree with. You can't say some are ok and some aren't.

Yes, that is the idiotic argument the moron in the video above is using. It's something that's obvious, trivially, pathetically untrue.

I don't want anyone to stop legislating based on morality, if you're stretching morality so far as to include all of human behavior.

Of course, what we're actually talking about is morality as it applies to personal liberty. Gay marriage, gay adoption, women being able to have access to birth control, these are all personal matters, private, individual liberty that does not affect others.

Dumping pollutants into the atmosphere, banning black people from your store, refusing medical treatment to women because of your own morality, all of these have direct effects on other people.

I really at this point can't tell whether you honestly think your position that discrimination based on race is peachy-fine and shouldn't be illegal is actually a sensible, moderate position, or you just want attention for being a glibertarian rebel.

Either way, it just makes you look naiver than the Pauls, which is tricky to pull off.

Have you considered trying to work for them? They could use someone with your mastery of illogic.

re: #9 Obdicut

Do you realize that when you play dumb it makes you look dumb?

Was it in there or are you reading between the lines? Do you really believe that most xtians want to outlaw homosexuality or premarital sex? I'm sure there are some but I wouldn't call them anything close to a majority of believers. Yesterday I posted a poll about gays in the military. I find it hard to believe that 75% of evangelicals are ok with gays in uniform but at the same time want to outlaw sodomy.

Yes, Rogue. I really am very familiar with your and Rand Paul's line of logic that says that people should be allowed to discriminate against black people in hiring them, letting them shop at their stores, live in their buildings, etc. You don't need to type it out every time.

Do you get the slightest 'boy am I fucking up right now' when you talk about stopping people from banning black people from shopping at their stores as the majority forcing the minority into doing something? Like, a little twinge at all?

What about the PBA ban Michigan that's about to pass. If the majority thinks it's morally abhorrent than you must be all for it, right? After all, the majority is entitled to decide something like that in your view or am I mistaken?

Yes, that is the idiotic argument the moron in the video above is using. It's something that's obvious, trivially, pathetically untrue.

I don't want anyone to stop legislating based on morality, if you're stretching morality so far as to include all of human behavior.

Of course, what we're actually talking about is morality as it applies to personal liberty. Gay marriage, gay adoption, women being able to have access to birth control, these are all personal matters, private, individual liberty that does not affect others.

Dumping pollutants into the atmosphere, banning black people from your store, refusing medical treatment to women because of your own morality, all of these have direct effects on other people.

I really at this point can't tell whether you honestly think your position that discrimination based on race is peachy-fine and shouldn't be illegal is actually a sensible, moderate position, or you just want attention for being a glibertarian rebel.

Either way, it just makes you look naiver than the Pauls, which is tricky to pull off.

Have you considered trying to work for them? They could use someone with your mastery of illogic.

Gliberal policy. "It's unacceptable for religious people to hold and vote based on religious views but it's perfectly acceptable for others to enforce a code of morality because we're only doing it because it's right". If it's unacceptable for religious people to try to hold others to their standard of good conduct then it's unacceptable for everyone. In my view of a perfect world if you don't like the idea of gay marriage then don't marry someone gay. If you don't like a business because they only want to cater to a particular race of people then don't go into their business, and if you don't like abortion then don't abort your fetus. I know that the concept of allowing people to live by their own conscious is tough for those who insist on controlling people but sometimes it's healthier to just let stuff go.

I love how you managed to squeak in clean air laws into a discussion of morality and the law. It's nice to see you semi-admit that you don't really mind laws based on morality as long as it lines up with your own view of which moral codes are correct and which aren't. Personally, I don't think my views should be enforced on others even if those views happen to be in the majority.

re: #10 RogueOne

Was it in there or are you reading between the lines? Do you really believe that most xtians want to outlaw homosexuality or premarital sex?

No. Why are you asking me about claims I didn't make?

What about the PBA ban Michigan that's about to pass. If the majority thinks it's morally abhorrent than you must be all for it, right?

No. The idea that I'm okay with a majority determining what's morally right is something that you made up, that I never said, that I never came anywhere close to. As usual, you're simply inventing the opposition argument.

Gliberal policy. "It's unacceptable for religious people to hold and vote based on religious views but it's perfectly acceptable for others to enforce a code of morality because we're only doing it because it's right".

I don't think it's a problem for people to vote based on religious views, though.

So your non-argument sort of trips on its own dick right out of the gate.

. Personally, I don't think my views should be enforced on others even if those views happen to be in the majority.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were a complete anarchist. Sorry, it's hard to get a coherent message out of you.

re: #11 Obdicut

I'm not a complete anarchist but I do have some of those tendencies. I don't believe that I have the right to enforce my views on what is proper behavior on others, that isn't anarchist.

Going beyond my belief that people are entitled to be as ignorant/bigoted as they please let me ask you this, would you want to rent an apartment from a person who hated jews but had to keep his mouth shut or would you rather rent from someone you knew didn't care about your religion/race? The law doesn't stop people from believing what they want, it only stops them from letting those views be known. I'd rather know going in what those views were so I knew if it was someone I wanted to associate with.

I had a customer who didn't like black people and I knew it because he asked that I not send "that black welder" out anymore. Guess which customer I no longer have? He'd rather have a white guy and I'd rather not have a blatant bigot for a customer. It's not up to the law to decide who is right and who is wrong, it's up to me.

re: #12 RogueOne

I'm not a complete anarchist but I do have some of those tendencies. I don't believe that I have the right to enforce my views on what is proper behavior on others, that isn't anarchist.

Including murder, rape, and those things? Or do you make up a magical exception for them?

I had a customer who didn't like black people and I knew it because he asked that I not send "that black welder" out anymore. Guess which customer I no longer have? He'd rather have a white guy and I'd rather not have a blatant bigot for a customer. It's not up to the law to decide who is right and who is wrong, it's up to me.

But what actually happened in history, Rogue? Rather than in the glibertarian fantasy paradise? What happened when stores were allowed to ban black people, when hotels were. What actually happened?