Republicans plan to reintroduce Anti-LGBT ‘religious freedom’ bill supported by Trump

Good old "but" - the segue to inconsistency and hypocrisy.

The Nazi party and Ku Klux Klan are not classified as terrorist groups, so on what grounds are you legally entitled to deny them service?

 

So you are cool with that? Firemen watching your mother's house burn down because she's the wrong religion?

 

For that matter, under their argument, what right do you have to deny services to members of Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah?

 

No, I'm not cool with that.

Nor do I know of firemen refusing to put fires out over religion.. I know of firemen that have refused to put out fires for other reasons tho... But does the reason really matter?

- - - Updated - - -

He's going to go to the SPLC to "prove you wrong" but at the same time the SPLC labels libertarians "terrorists" too so their assertions should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Your hypothetical scenario wouldn't happen, which is what I was pointing out.

 

Yeah, I would say the reason really does matter. And why should that Muslim firefighter have to associate with someone who is whatever religion your mother is?

 

Government workers need to work for everybody, since everybody's taxes pay for them. A person in the private sector, however, should be able to do business with whoever he wants.

 

No, reasons don't matter....... That's where progressives get the founding documents ALL WRONG....

This is why progressives shouldn't be allowed anywhere near legislation.

 

maybe not in California.

 

I'll give a damn if the ever start acting like the left's icon Fidel Castro and sending gays against their will to reeducation camps.

 

The funny part is progressives would never get bent if services were refused because of some kind of labor dispute..... That is fine with them.

 

Ok, sure. Whether I killed that guy in self defense or just cause stabbing is fun makes no difference.......

 

They're already sending people to reeducation camps - they aren't called "reeducation camps" tho - they're called universities and colleges.

 

Unless it's that other Abrahamic religion doing the discriminating, right? Then it's just ticketty boo. No problem whatsoever. They can do whatever they like. They are a favoured identity group, so have special liberties that Christians don't.

In the meantime, draconian laws are not progress. Progress is humans maturing beyond a point where such things are necessary. We passed that point some time ago (last century, in fact). Progressives now spend their time worrying about the occasional leftover from that period, instead of adjusting to the reality of human difference (hint, it's not by legislating conformity).

 

It really doesn't matter....... You get charged with a crime the state needs to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasons don't matter..

You ever hear of blind justice?

Of course not.

 

Not a fan of Religious protection to be honest, I think public business should be open to the entire public.

No special protection for businesses, no special protection/classification for LGBT either so it goes both ways.

Only exception is my distaste for neck or facial tattoo's, they creep me out and I fully support any discrimination of them

 

Dysfunctional children always need more attention than functional children.

 

Er, yeah intent, as in the reason you did it. But I guess the reason you're not making sense is unimportant right?

- - - Updated - - -

2+2=5 and reasons don't matter. I win.

 

You do have an excellent point. It sure seems like we are giving special liberties to some religions and not others. There should be NO favored identity groups.

 

The reason is irrelevant...

Intent to break the law - the crime is irrelevant..

Basically they have to prove that I knew what I did was illegal..... Which is why if you ever got a ticket in your life or were charged with a crime the word "knowingly" is used rather redundantly...

 

Fireman are actors of the state.
The state cannot discriminate.

 

Unless they go on strike and in that case the progressives celebrate it.

 

You're something of a utilitarian, like myself. I tend to agree that human rights should stop at necessity. Food, shelter, education, healthcare, equality. That's it. We had all of that well established in the west last century. Progressives didn't and still don't recognise the poor utility of resources implicit in chasing 'luxury' rights. They don't seem to understand that real progress is hampered by this.

 

I agree, it is a petty social issue. Let's put our energy into more important issues.

 

This is true, the more things are necessitated as a 'right', the more that compels the government or otherwise violence to attaining it. Perhaps what leads me to my utilitarianism is my eventual love for technocracy(Fascist-technocracy). I see the world, ideally as a computer. Literally if we could live our lives as efficiency as a computer, with its anti-virus programs and everything else. Accomplishing that from a human standpoint will take time, but it's time I'm willing to take.

But it's not just the violent part of it that would be bad. But if 'everything' is a necessity, we realize the utter reality that not everyone can have everything. The end result inevitably being indeed a waste of resources, but that also some will inevitably go without. By ensuring the basic necessities, and allowing for freedom to determine the rest, the goods will ideally be distributed by the proper actions of actors.

Those who produce wealth, would get wealth. Those who work, would receive the benefits and those who do neither of these things of course get neither of these things. That's the way it should work, and I think this world's getting there with each little incident at a time, though unsuspecting to us in the immediate moment.