Rand Paul on gay marriage

Brett85 said:
They already can. The government doesn't send in SWAT teams to arrest gay couples who get married.
Click to expand...

That's about it. If this isn't about ending an imbalance in what benefits can be derived by which select people, at the exclusion of others, then there's no longer anything moral or principled about it. It's about smugness and muscle flexing. Nothing more.

And if there's anything more that will be gained in the real world, it's the salvation of bakeries that most people agree ought to go out of business, and that the free market would otherwise ensure go out of business.
 
YesI'mALiberal said:
Spoken as one who has the luxury of living in a society that HAS the Civil Rights Acts, and HAS slavery done away with by bloody war, etc., and is free to opine that those government interventions weren't necessary without ever having to reference a reality without them.

(And as for the 9th and 10th Amendments - Rand Paul is a firm believer in the 14th Amendment and judicial activism. Did you forget about that one?)
Click to expand...

I view this period you allude to as an intermission to the paradox we know as humanity. Humanity hasn't really dramatically changed during this period. We have tyranny & injustice but it's known under different names.
 
Last edited:
The heart of the matter here is whether sexual orientation should be included as a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Some of us here (including myself) support that. Others appear to support anti-discrimination laws, but do not support including sexual orientation as a protected class. And then there are yet others who do not support anti-discrimination laws at all.

Personally I see it as a protection against a tyranny of the majority. Majority groups should not be free to oppress minorities. This problem has a tangible, harmful effect on what I would consider to be human rights if not protected against by law. I understand though I am breaking with libertarians here of course and my view probably isn't representative of most.
 
Crashland said:
The heart of the matter here is whether sexual orientation should be included as a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Some of us here (including myself) support that. Others appear to support anti-discrimination laws, but do not support including sexual orientation as a protected class. And then there are yet others who do not support anti-discrimination laws at all.

Personally I see it as a protection against a tyranny of the majority. Majority groups should not be free to oppress minorities. This problem has a tangible, harmful effect on what I would consider to be human rights if not protected against by law. I understand I am breaking with libertarians here of course and my view probably isn't representative of most.
Click to expand...

You're referring to hate crime legislation?
 
Crashland said:
And then there are yet others who do not support anti-discrimination laws at all.
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty clearly the libertarian position? There shouldn't be anti discrimination laws as they relate to private businesses. There can be anti discrimination laws when it comes to something like public schools, preventing public schools from forcing kids to be segregated. But anti discrimination laws as they pertain to provide businesses clearly violate the principle of freedom of association.
 
Brett85 said:
Isn't that pretty clearly the libertarian position? There shouldn't be anti discrimination laws as they relate to private businesses. There can be anti discrimination laws when it comes to something like public schools, preventing public schools from forcing kids to be segregated. But anti discrimination laws as they pertain to provide businesses clearly violate the principle of freedom of association.
Click to expand...

That's why I said I was breaking with libertarians.
If it is a totally local thing like a private club then I don't care, but if it is a business that is branched out at all and there is any reason to apply the interstate commerce clause to it, I am more than happy to subject it to anti-discrimination laws.
 
AuH20 said:
You're referring to hate crime legislation?
Click to expand...

Not hate crime legislation, I mean anti-discrimination legislation. Hate crime legislation has to do with the motivation of the perpetrator committing another crime. Anti-discrimination legislation is more about things like refusal of service or other discrimination on the basis of the person being a member of a protected class.
 
Crashland said:
That's why I said I was breaking with libertarians.
If it is a totally local thing like a private club then I don't care, but if it is a business that is branched out at all and there is any reason to apply the interstate commerce clause to it, I am more than happy to subject it to anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, we need to stop the mass-discrimination of those wedding cake and florist mega-conglomerates.

Once their reign of terror is over, then we take on those no shirt, no shoes, no service fascists who have been holding down the hippies far too long.

Let's take it one further, if you're a creative person, an artist in the case of these professions, you care very seriously what you attach your name too. For a creative person, a job is not just a profession, but an expression of self that cannot just be sold for any project they don't feel good about doing. Are you really going to say that the desire of someone who wants something created for them trumps their artistic freedom? Because it is not just the product but that artist's heart and soul you are buying.

So not only should this "anti discrimination" offend Christians, it should offend any artist that wouldn't want to be subjected to force to create a work of art that they don't want to create.

You seem to be caught in the old philosophy of "equal access", but no one is denying anyone's ability to buy cake or flowers, they're preserving their right to be an artist who stands by their work (well okay, in this instance of course religious belief is the key factor, but that doesn't make it any less despicable to force them to be a creative slave for a project they don't want any part of).
 
TheGrinch said:
Yes, we need to stop the mass-discrimination of those wedding cake and florist mega-conglomerates.

Once their reign of terror is over, then we take on those no shirt, no shoes, no service fascists who have been holding down the hippies far too long.

Let's take it one further, if you're a creative person, an artist in the case of these professions, you care very seriously what you attach your name too. For a creative person, a job is not just a profession, but an expression of self that cannot just be sold for any project they don't feel good about doing. Are you really going to say that the desire of someone who wants something created for them trumps their artistic freedom? Because it is not just the product but that artist's heart and soul you are buying.

So not only should this "anti discrimination" offend Christians, it should offend any artist that wouldn't want to be subjected to force to create a work of art that they don't want to create.

You seem to be caught in the old philosophy of "equal access", but no one is denying anyone's ability to buy cake or flowers, they're preserving their right to be an artist who stands by their work (well okay, in this instance of course religious belief is the key factor, but that doesn't make it any less despicable to force them to be a creative slave for a project they don't want any part of).
Click to expand...

You might think it is funny to laugh off mass-discrimination, I don't think it is a laughing matter. Just because we are using rather trivial examples like wedding cakes doesn't make it any less important on principle. Do whatever you want as an artist, I don't care. If you are making it your business though, particularly a large business, and your business happens to be making wedding cakes, then you should not be free to discriminate against protected classes. If you really need a religious exemption because it would just break your pathetic soul to actually write two men's names on the cake and color it with gay pride rainbows, then fine, I think you are within your right to claim such an exemption. But that is where I would draw the line, if it is an ordinary generic wedding cake with nothing "gay" written on it which you would just as well sell to a straight couple, then you should not be allowed to discriminate based on your knowledge of the client's orientation.
 
Crashland said:
You might think it is funny to laugh off mass-discrimination, I don't think it is a laughing matter. Just because we are using rather trivial examples like wedding cakes doesn't make it any less important on principle. Do whatever you want as an artist, I don't care. If you are making it your business though, particularly a large business, and your business happens to be making wedding cakes, then you should not be free to discriminate against protected classes. If you really need a religious exemption because it would just break your pathetic soul to actually write two men's names on the cake and color it with gay pride rainbows, then fine, I think you are within your right to claim such an exemption. But that is where I would draw the line, if it is an ordinary generic wedding cake with nothing "gay" written on it which you would just as well sell to a straight couple, then you should not be allowed to discriminate based on your knowledge of the client's orientation.
Click to expand...

Do you support a law banning the n-word as well? The government can't end all private discrimination in our country.
 
Crashland said:
You might think it is funny to laugh off mass-discrimination, I don't think it is a laughing matter. Just because we are using rather trivial examples like wedding cakes doesn't make it any less important on principle. Do whatever you want as an artist, I don't care. If you are making it your business though, particularly a large business, and your business happens to be making wedding cakes, then you should not be free to discriminate against protected classes. If you really need a religious exemption because it would just break your pathetic soul to actually write two men's names on the cake and color it with gay pride rainbows, then fine, I think you are within your right to claim such an exemption. But that is where I would draw the line, if it is an ordinary generic wedding cake with nothing "gay" written on it which you would just as well sell to a straight couple, then you should not be allowed to discriminate based on your knowledge of the client's orientation.
Click to expand...

That's right. And it must be sold at a non-discriminatory price as well. Of course, such prices will be determined by our benevolent State.

This simple process could be streamlined if the King's men would just create a national skilled workers list, and just appropriate work from there. One can only hope.
 
staerker said:
That's right. And it must be sold at a non-discriminatory price as well. Of course, such prices will be determined by our benevolent State.

This simple process could be streamlined if the King's men would just create a national skilled workers list, and just appropriate work from there. One can only hope.
Click to expand...

Non-discrimination doesn't mean the state gets to determine the price you sell at -- you get to determine the price, but you can't charge a black person twice as much as a white person for the exact same service.
 
Crashland said:
You might think it is funny to laugh off mass-discrimination, I don't think it is a laughing matter. Just because we are using rather trivial examples like wedding cakes doesn't make it any less important on principle. Do whatever you want as an artist, I don't care. If you are making it your business though, particularly a large business, and your business happens to be making wedding cakes, then you should not be free to discriminate against protected classes. If you really need a religious exemption because it would just break your pathetic soul to actually write two men's names on the cake and color it with gay pride rainbows, then fine, I think you are within your right to claim such an exemption. But that is where I would draw the line, if it is an ordinary generic wedding cake with nothing "gay" written on it which you would just as well sell to a straight couple, then you should not be allowed to discriminate based on your knowledge of the client's orientation.
Click to expand...

I'm not laughing off mass-discrimination, I'm laughing at you and our new resident liberal troll acting like this is a matter of mass-discrimination. This entire conversation was regarding the bakers and florists, so I'm glad you agree, if all it is is a few people having religious objections, then they are well within their (constitutionally guaranteed) right to do so.

The way you two are talking, you make it sound like they're being systematically oppressed like black people in the 1950's, or even to a lesser extent gay people in the 1980's. Guess what, even though many don't condone the lifestyle, they're here, they're queer, and we've pretty much all gotten used to it. Where resentment comes in is when their "protected class" trumps others freedom to refuse work due to their own beliefs.

Beyond that, I'm going to bow out if this is going to turn into a debate about the CRA and such, as I've said more than my piece, and if you've been here this long and not reconsidered your stance, you're never going to.
 
Crashland said:
If you are making it your business though, particularly a large business, and your business happens to be making wedding cakes, then you should not be free to discriminate against protected classes.
Click to expand...

So I'm free to discriminate against anyone the government allows me to? THANKS OBAMA.
 
Brett85 said:
Wouldn't it be logically consistent for you to support that since you support laws against private discrimination?
Click to expand...

Using the n-word isn't the same as refusing service to someone or charging a different price on the basis of their race. You can't regulate people's hearts, but you can regulate commerce.
 
Crashland said:
Using the n-word isn't the same as refusing service to someone or charging a different price on the basis of their race. You can't regulate people's hearts, but you can regulate commerce.
Click to expand...

Why should the government regulate commerce? We're supposed to believe in free market principles. If a particular business refused service to blacks or decided to charge a different price to them because of their race, there would be mass protests of that particular business. That business would go out of business within a day. The free market works.
 
In all things...including marriage..the correct answer is de-regulation by the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top