Godstud wrote:Yes, a very regressive Libertarian view, and also bad for society as a whole, if everyone started to decide who, and who could not, enter their business.
This operates from the assumption that people would probably take total advantage of this situation. I simply do not think that is the case. I think most people run businesses to make money.
Especially this would be true now -- you could even say that
maybe it was necessary to have a temporary injunction on this in the 1960s and 1970s when there was still some enforced elements of segregation via private business, and that these could not be eroded without government help. But it is certainly true now that anyone who would engage in these practices actively would be shouted down and boycotted.
HEck, we have people boycotted bcause the business owners
are conservatives, see Chick-Fil-A.
Personal beliefs are fine, until they affect the lives of others. That's where your "freedoms" end in a progressive and modern society.
So my personal beliefs are fine... But I should not be allowed to live by these personal beliefs if it affects someone else? This is pretty overbearing and not my idea of "liberty."
If liberal democracy means this, why should I like it? What is the selling point?
You don't get freedom and instead have to do exactly what other people do. Not great.
I'd prefer to live in my own Fashy ethno-state ruled over by a King and made up of people very much like myself. I get everythign I want, then, and the trains run on time, and there's no reason for me to be told to
not be myself but that I am
also free while the public schools will try to brainwash any kids that I may have into their perspective. Zero benefits for me.
You could file this under 'reasons to stay away from the West.'
Employees are not property, and as such have rights.
Correct. Anybody can quit at any time and nobody can be legally held against their will. Employees also have every right to negotiate their own contracts.
Those are great rights.
I am quite sure that the Founding Fathers had no idea how the world would change in 200+ years. I am sure they didn't envision slavery ending, space travel, high literacy rates, and computers.
The Founding Fathers, while quite progressive... for 1776. I am sure they did envision immigration, since USA was created by immigrants FOR immigrants. Remember that Statue of Liberty? Tons of conservatives , like you, forget it pretty quickly, when the immigration issue arises.
The Naturalization Act of 1790, literally in the first congress, clearly stated that the nation was meant to be made up of free white men in good standing, full stop.
WTF do transgender people marrying, have to do with anything? Your feelings I suspect. You find it disgusting, so you bring it up. Argument based on feelings, again.
Also, your "feelings" are what makes you think that "the finger" is obscene, so don't talk to me about your feelings not being involved. I don't find the finger obscene. Offensive? Maybe. It's very subjective and a symbol of disdain is not the same as being "obscene".
Disdain : the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.
Obscene: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency..
Oh, this is about ME, and my terrible views, right?
No, it's about stating exactly what the Left believes in, and how it is utterly absurd to imagine someone in 1776 thinking about this as some noble endpoint for our country. It shows just how far off the rails that they have come because normal, healthy people squirm when the topic comes up.
yet, this is what is promoted on mainstream TV and what is being taught to kids all over the US.
So, I think talking about the Constitution is incredibly funny.
The Left can't do it because their viewpoints sound liek a total joke in juxtaposition with the Founders.
The Right can't do it because they're irrelevant.
And the Libertarians are doubly irrelevant.
It's really a big farce.