Stance on gay rights?

[brohammed]

I used quotes because I do not think that is a freedom. It is depriving someone of their freedom.

[dagrimreefah]

I used quotes because I do not think that is a freedom. It is depriving someone of their freedom.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.



How does that violate others' freedom again?

[brohammed]

If you fire someone for being a woman, or for being black, or for being gay, you are violating that persons freedom to work. If you fire them for being incompetent, you are justified in this violation however, because you have a right to work too (ie that your business performs smoothly).

[dagrimreefah]

If you fire someone for being a woman, or for being black, or for being gay, you are violating that persons freedom to work. If you fire them for being incompetent, you are justified in this violation however, because you have a right to work too (ie that your business performs smoothly).

But isn't it the business owner's discretion in a free society? I mean, the business IS the business owner's private property, is it not? And if you, the government, or anyone else violate his private property rights of hiring whoever he wants to hire, doesn't that infringe on the business owner's rights? And you can't have a free society without private property rights, can you?

Everyone has the right to work, but no one has the right to a job. Jobs are CREATED by other individuals, namely business owners.

EDIT: Great debate brohammed. I'd really love to continue this, no sarcasm. But sleep beckons.

[brohammed]

This has been a good debate, yes. I will not continue though, despite my strong feelings I am not particularly well read in the area (of libertarian approaches to freedom in an LGBT context) and so I think I've said all I can constructively say.

To summarise my argument though, it's basically that within the current framework (ie a cobbled together amalgam of everything that came before, and generally not much of it libertarianism), and because of how the current framework (of legal and social attitudes) came about (ie cobbling it together from what came before) prejudices and privileges exist, and the momentum of the framework keeps the prejudices and privileges running unless they are challenged by new social movements with the help of the law, and so we do need to amend the current laws to clarify that discrimination on grounds of homosexuality is equally as unacceptable as discrimination on grounds of race or gender.

This all assumes that most aspects of the current system are fine though, which is where I think we disagree (ie the level to which the government can step in and limit freedoms). From what I gather, you would prefer that happens only when property rights are threatened (including assault, murder etc), and I would argue that a wider sphere of influence is, for now, acceptable for the purposes of equality (given the existence of prejudices and privileges).

[Phaen]

I hope you two do continue because it's really refreshing to see people argue without letting things slip into personal attacks.

[shotgunn902]

i'm gonna get burned for this, but this is how i feel.

Homosexuality is wrong. 2 males or 2 females cannot make a baby. Which i believe is not natural.

oh god im laughing so hard!

IF THEY CANT REPRODUCE A SMALL DEMON CHILD THEN ITS NOT LOVE -shakes fist-

people are people. treat them like people.

[ApocalypsePlease]

In democracy, it's really sad that these inequalities aren't viewed as wrong by the majority.
The issue with the power being with the people is that the people will usually act upon their own thoughts/benefits without thinking about the effects on others, or on what rights they're imposing on. Separation of church and state should make the reasoning "God hates fags" or any religious disapproval invalid as a factor when voting. However, since the people get to speak on their own behalf, they will say what they want to and not follow the basic rights standards that are upheld by the government (which also is supposed to represent the people).

[MagicManICT]

Separation of church and state should make the reasoning "God hates fags" or any religious disapproval invalid as a factor when voting.

Haters gonna hate. If you tell them they can't hate on this, then they just find something else to hate on. Most of 'em hate cause they're too stupid to think for themselves or otherwise.

Really, isn't this sort of stuff how the Nazis came to power in the 1920s and 30s? Direct people's hatred outward and don't look inward. Find the common cause and manipulate it to gain control. Sounds like certain talking heads in modern America.... (I'm looking at you, Bill O'Reilly.)

[ApocalypsePlease]

It's mostly due to people being conditioned into a certain way of thinking during their development. This then becomes a chain (although one with diminishing returns as some change their life philosophies), which fuels the next generation with people with likewise views.