helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
In today's USA, this is unfortunately not the case. Ask "Sweetcakes by Mellisa," or ask the couple being forced to allow their own private farm to be rented out to homosexuals to celebrate their homosexuality. http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/19/farm-owners-fined-saying-lesbian-wedding/ But that's just people and businesses doing things directly wedding-related. You should also ask, oh, any college or university, including church colleges. You should ask any landlord. You should ask any employer, period.
No, there is no choice but to rent to these people, to sell to these people, to work with these people, to do everything with these people. There are many people who do not want to. They don't like these people, they don't like what they're doing. They certainly don't like fearing they will be publicly crucified whenever they fail to celebrate them at every turn and with every word. What they would very much like to do is continue with their lives, see their beloved institutions continue, and be able to just quietly, non-hatefully, NOT HIRE OR RENT TO GAYS.
They can't. And making their gayness official and their gay "unions" blessed by the State is one more step penning them into a corner. These people feel trapped, believe me.
No one was persecuting gays. No one was oppressing them. That wasn't, and isn't, good enough for them. They want acceptance. Celebration. They need everyone to stop discriminating against them. And that's wrong, that's ugly, that's hateful, and that's anti-libertarian.
Libertarians are on the side of gays when they are just a quiet, unassuming minority group. Nobody should lynch them or whatever (sorry, FF). But neither does everyone -- or anyone -- need to love them and accept their lifestyle. All is well. All is peaceful. We will stand up for their right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home behind closed doors, just like we'd stand up for Jews to read the Torah in their own home, and for any other very controversial or unpopular group do their controversial or unpopular things (remember, the 1st Amendment isn't so we can talk about the weather).
Libertarians should not, however, be on the side of gays such as they are in the current climate. We should not side with the gay movement. This would be a major strategic error. This gay movement is a loud, obnoxious, intolerant, yes hateful movement. They are super-passionately, vitriolically opposed to traditional old-fashioned moral standards of virtue and chastity. They are arrayed in battle against the traditional white, heterosexual, patriarchal European culture. But this is the very culture that has acted as the incubator for liberty, for classical liberalism and finally libertarianism. These (white, heterosexual, culturally-traditional males) are the very people most disposed to favor libertarian ideas. To adopt a posture opposing the well-spring of our existence and the only hope of our success would be, well, suicidal.
Ron Paul also released a brochure entitled "Protecting Marriage" with headers like "The Defense of Marriage Act" (explaining how much he supports it) and "Defending Traditional Marriage". It was one of only about 6 brochures on key issues (taxes, guns, and traditional marriage right up there). Ron Paul had some strategic sense. Ron Paul knew who his friends were.
In my opinion, the gay movement are not our friends. If we were very charismatic and said just the right things with just the right tone -- like Ron Paul did -- we could avoid alienating the gays altogether and at the same time appeal to the bourgeois religious traditionalists. But if we must choose one or the other, we should obviously choose the bourgeois. And actually, honestly, the gay movement hated Ron, too. There's no pleasing those people.
Last edited:
