The Washington Post‘s Civilities columnist Steven Petrow looks at the case of a gay male couple that was asked to leave Louie’s Sports Bar & Tiki Bar in Fayetteville, N.C., by the bar’s female owner. The incident: Around 11 p.m. on a late summer night, Andrew Deras put his arm around his boyfriend Dustin Baker and gave him what he later described as a “very minor” kiss.
Noting a few similar incidents, “Could the kiss be the next big milestone in LGBT rights?,” Petrow asks.
In the comments below the article on the Post‘s website, one commenter said:
Of course this has to be litigated. The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution means that gays can do the same things as straights in public.
Others pointed to the need for new, rigorous anti-discrimination legislation, to which another commenter responded:
As a gay Libertarian, I have regularly parted ways with the activist-type gays who always want a new law… and when they get that new law, they want another new law, and another and another and another…..You don’t like that bar that threw out the gay couple for kissing? Then boycott the bar and shine the light of bad publicity upon them.
Other commenters quickly chimed in that such a viewpoint was no different than sanctioning Jim Crow segregation against African Americans.
Not long ago, I referenced a fine analysis by John Corvino on the differences between anti-gay discrimination by a smattering of private small businesses in 2015 and systemic, frequently state-imposed racial discrimination in the pre-civil-rights South. And it’s no surprise that I’d rather see civil action against establishments that discriminate over unequal public displays of affection than lawsuits and state-administered punishments.
Along those lines, Scott Shackford has an updated version of his Is this where gays and libertarians part ways? piece is in the November issue of Reason, now online. An excerpt:
[W]e have little reason to believe that most people want to discriminate against gay, lesbian, or transgender customers. The burden created by those who do is remarkably small and can be remedied without government intervention. …
Libertarians care more about restraining government authority over the individual than allegiance to anybody’s “side.” Support for the rights of religious conservatives to discriminate should not be taken as endorsement or encouragement for their goals or moral framework.
As a gay libertarian, I support the right of a baker to decline to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, but don’t expect me to buy so much as a cookie at their shop. And now that government-enforced oppression and discrimination is ending, I’d much rather see my peers embrace a world where we are all equally free to decide the terms by which we deal with each other, not one where we seize the same government powers that were once used to abuse us and use them to pummel our ideological opponents.
49 Comments for “Kiss and Clash”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If we are going to take another run around the track on this, let’s look at the argument that gays and lesbians should not be protected by public accommodations laws because we weren’t subject to segregation laws. And let’s also look at that argument as it applies to other classes commonly protected by such laws — women, racial and ethnic minorities other than African-Americans, religious adherents, and the other groups covered by public accommodations laws in almost all states
An identical argument can be made with respect to women, racial and ethnic minorities other than African-Americans, religious adherents, and the other groups covered by public accommodations laws in almost all states. If you follow logic of the “gay is not the new black” argument, then there has to have been a schema of laws enforcing discrimination in order to justify including a class in public accommodations laws. If that holds, then women, racial and ethnic minorities other than African-Americans, religious adherents, and the other groups covered by public accommodations laws in almost all states should be declassified.
The logical misfire error is compounded because it ignores a simple fact. While it would inaccurate to argue that the LGBT rights movement was identical to the African-American rights movement, the LGBT experience comes a lot closer to the African-American experience than does the experience of any of the other classes covered by public accommodations laws.
In fact, none of the other protected classes — women, religious adherents, racial and ethnic minorities other than African-Americans, and so on — can lay claim to anything like the government-sponsored discrimination directed at gays and lesbians over the years.
None have faced the equivalent of sodomy laws. None were systematically kicked out of college or fired on the spot if discovered. None have been banned from military service, or subject to imprisonment if caught in service. None have been the subject of pervasive, systemic government harassment — police harassment, laws banning public gatherings, laws making it a crime for bars to serve them drinks, and so on. None of those groups have been the subject of laws and constitutional amendments banning them from marriage. None of them have had anything remotely like the African-American experience or the LGBT experience.
So what’s the deal? Why are the so-called “libertarians” who make the “gay is not the new black” argument so eager to point out that the LGBT experience is different than that of African-Americans, but so doggedly determined to ignore that fact that the experience of other classes commonly protected by non-discrimination laws is even more dissimilar?
Look, if you want to argue that public accommodations laws should be repealed, fine. Make the argument. If you want to argue that public accommodations laws should be repealed for anyone other than African-Americans, then so do. But don’t play games with the facts, or think that gays and lesbians — at least those of us who are old enough to have experienced the days when government power was used against us, pervasively and systematically — aren’t smart enough to know that the argument is a crock.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Since this a private business, it would be a question for what city or state or federal civil rights laws existed, as opposed to Constitutional law.
The narrative from some “homocons” seems to be, “oh, we cant have LGBT civil rights in red states, or at the federal level, but I dont mind them in my little blue city.”
posted by JohnInCA on
The article leads with the assumption that there *was* a “marriage” between Libertarians and LGBTs.
There wasn’t. They thought we were a fine dance partner, but never took us home to meet mother. Never committed. Never influenced.
So, uh, you’ll have to forgive me but… I don’t think I’m gonna exactly cry over Libertarians realizing that the LGBT movement (or rather, different groups that align with LGBT issues) still want (effectively) inclusion in the CRA. That’s kinda been the gold standard for as long as I’ve been paying attention.
And as long as Libertarians are okay with a baker refusing me because of their religion, but me being prohibited from refusing them because of their religion, then those Libertarians will be okay with special rights. For that life-style choice known as “religion”.
posted by Houndentenor on
If the argument is that there shouldn’t be any nondiscrimination laws, then libertarians are welcome to make that argument to the American people and get those laws repealed. If such laws are going to exist, however, I see no reason why lbgt people can’t be part of them. I hear arguments against them but even the Republicans who most love paying lip-service to libertarian ideas can’t be bothered (or more likely know better than) to try to repeal such laws.
Equal means equal.
posted by Mike in Houston on
This is a head scratcher for me… what the hell does “civil action” actually mean?
Stephen — do you mean civil opprobrium like the online shaming of the pizza place that you railed about? Protests? You’ve argued against this in many early posts because it makes LGBT equality advocates “sore losers”…
How do you get redress for what you deem “anti-gay discrimination by a smattering of private small businesses in 2015” without the courts or civil law protections? Yelp reviews?
And BTW — if you’re going to minimize anti-LGBT discrimination to “a smattering”, then please be honest and acknowledge that it’s less than “a smattering of small private businesses” that have been subjected to “state-administered punishments” for breaking public accommodation laws that include LGBT persons.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Stephen;
um. you do know that a civil action lawsuit would require LGBT being included in civil rights laws…
You cannot successfully sue a business in civil court for having a discriminatory PDA rule, if sexual orientation/gender identity is not a part of the civil rights code.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
This idea that the entire LGBT community and anyone who wants to attach the libertarian label to their actions were once together or part is just, plain lame.
The Libertarian Right – which Reason tends to worship – had very little interest in LGBT rights during the previous decades.
Ayn Rand loathed to talk about the gays, and didnt do much to help with the sodomy laws (the only gay rights issue she publicly endorsed)
The libertarian right was mostly too busy having a lovefest with the Reagan Revolution (which knew how to pepper its speeches with libertarian slang)
posted by Lori Heine on
Ignored, in this conversation, is a basic component of how libertarians differ in their thinking from statists. Statists believe that government force MUST be used to accomplish almost anything, and libertarians do not. Therefore, libertarians are said to not care about accomplishing anything they do not believe requires force.
I don’t believe that every baker in America must be forced to bake my wedding cake, or I’ll be unable to find one who will. I believe that discrimination is eroding largely because attitudes are changing. Even where laws exist (and of course they’re credited for every accomplishment under the sun), they often become unnecessary at some point–even in cases where at one time they might have been beneficial.
That is the libertarian point of view. Not that anyone is unworthy of equal treatment, and that therefore no laws mandating service to them should exist. The fact that some far-right libertarians and their fellow travelers don’t like gays, or that Ayn Rand was a very strange person, is really beside the point.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Even where laws exist (and of course they’re credited for every accomplishment under the sun), they often become unnecessary at some point–even in cases where at one time they might have been beneficial.
If the the laws are not needed, should libertarians in Phoenix work to repeal the local public accommodations ordinances in Phoenix (covering age, sex, race, color, religion, disability, marital status, national origin, sexual orientation and gender expression/identity) and/or the state public accommodations laws in Arizona (covering race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex, religion/creed and physical/mental disability)? If not, why not?
The fact that some far-right libertarians and their fellow travelers don’t like gays, or that Ayn Rand was a very strange person, is really beside the point.
Perhaps, but what is not beside the point is that the so-called “libertarians” at Reason, at CATO, and at IGF are eager to deny public accommodations protection to gays and lesbians, but don’t seem to be concerned (or won’t talk about it, if they are concerned) about public accommodations laws protecting just about everybody else.
So what’s going on with that?
posted by Lori Heine on
I explained how libertarians think, as opposed to how others believe we think. Should current laws be repealed? Probably, but they won’t be. It wasn’t my point (A) that they all should be repealed or (B) that gays should not be covered under them.
That’s a political hot potato, and of course no politician is going to touch it. At least, none that aren’t rabid social cons looking to keep gays and transgender citizens from being protected. And again, if the laws are going to exist, and apply to everyone else, like most libertarians I believe that everyone should be equally protected under them.
posted by Lori Heine on
We’ll never know how peaceful persuasion would have worked, once it has been foregone. The question of how it would have worked–had it been given the chance–is what most libertarians address.
Do I believe the laws protect me? I believe they mask those who would want to do me harm. I, personally, would prefer to see the whites of their eyes.
posted by Kosh III on
Bull! Jim Crow existed for decades and peaceful persuasion did NOT work.
posted by Houndentenor on
You can’t possibly be this ignorant of history. The “peaceful persuaders” were lynched. They were beaten, tortured and sometimes even burned alive. People were terrified to speak out because of what happened to those who did. Only the force of the federal government was ever going to change that.
posted by JohnInCA on
Didn’t address this earlier, but I think it’s a good point: “We’ll never know how peaceful persuasion would have worked, once it has been foregone”
Before any of us were born, “peaceful persuasion” was already out the window. The other “side”, such as it was, had already clamped down with laws, public condemnation, and violence against “us”.
So “peaceful persuasion”? I don’t know about you, but I’m not terribly inclined to be “peaceful” about my right to exist.
Further, I think you’re papering over a pretty important thing. Lawsuits break down barriers, but they don’t create non-discrimination laws. So every non-discrimination law or ordinance you see? *Is* the result of “peaceful persuasion”. They don’t come about any other way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We’ll never know how peaceful persuasion would have worked, once it has been foregone.
Sure we will. Public accommodations laws cover sexual orientation in 21 states, and don’t in 29 states. Housing discrimination laws and employment discrimination laws cover sexual orientation in 22 states, and don’t in 28 states.
Arizona is in the “no protection” category in all three areas, although local ordinances in some cities include sexual orientation in their ordinances.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And again, if the laws are going to exist, and apply to everyone else, like most libertarians I believe that everyone should be equally protected under them.
I guess that the folks at CATO, Reason and IFG are outliers, then, but it sure seems to me that those folks (who purport to be libertarian) want to exclude us (at least when it comes to our marriages and related) from the protection of the existing public accommodation laws.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That’s [repealing existing non-discrimination laws or removing existing classes from such laws] a political hot potato, and of course no politician is going to touch it.
I understand that no politician is going to propose repealing existing non-discrimination laws, a political third rail. I understand that denying non-discrimination protection to gays and lesbians, a historically despised class of citizens, is politically palatable (and often adventageous) in many areas of the country. I understand that excluding sexual orientation from existing non-discrimination laws and carving out special exemptions to non-discrimnation laws relating to gays and lesbians are of the same coin. I understand that laws that permit and/or sanction special discrimination against gays and lesbians sound better if wrapped in a high-minded patina of “protecting free expression”, “protecting religious freedom”, “limiting government power” and so forth. I understand why the writers Stephen frequently cites argue that gays and lesbians, although historically despised and oppressed by the government, didn’t experience segregation, and therefore don’t qualify for non-discrimination protection, all the while ignoring the fact that none of the other protected classes experienced segregation or anything close to the systematical, pervasive regime of government oppression that gays and lesbians experienced. I understand that the homocons who make such arguments most loudly usually live in blue states or blue cities, insulated from discrimination by the protections against which they argue so virtuously.
I’ve been involved with politics a long, long time, and so I understand all of that, and I understand it clearly.
I also understand that the end result is inconsistent with “equal means equal”, that differential treatment of citizens without good reason violates our social compact, and that singling out a class of citizens for differential treatment just because it is politically palatable to do so is wrong.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
you may have explained how the libertarian right thinks….
However, the insistence that civil rights laws should not apply to gays, but should apply to other cases of discrimination (race, color, religion, etc), is pure hypocriscy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[T]he insistence that civil rights laws should not apply to gays, but should apply to other cases of discrimination (race, color, religion, etc), is pure hypocriscy.
I suspect that gays an lesbians are singled out for special discriminatory treatment is a matter of (1) political expediency (it is politically possible to exclude gays and lesbians from non-discrimination laws, at least temporarily, but it is not politically possible to roll back non-discrimination protection for other classes), and (2) for Republican-aligned “libertarians”, political necessity (the libertarian faction within the party would lose what little influence it has if it openly opposed the social conservative juggernaut).
The hypocrisy, in my view, comes in wrapping up raw political calculation in the rubric of “protecting free expression”, “protecting religious freedom”, “limiting government power” and so forth. It is political sleight of hand, essentially dishonest, and masks the raw ugliness of the effort.
posted by MAJ on
Statists believe that government force MUST be used to accomplish almost anything…
Lori, we’ve done this round before but really, “statists?” Such an Ayn Rand phrase that is not really relevant today. Any more than we talk about people being a Whig or Tory. You always say you aren’t a disciple of Ms. Rand, but your language belies you. Please give me some examples of a statist.
posted by Lori Heine on
MAJ, you must never come near any libertarian media whatsoever. Statist is actually a very common phrase, still very much in parlance in libertarian circles. You are merely displaying your ignorance.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Whether from ignorance or not, MAJ asked (politely, I might point out) for some examples of the term “statist.” Are libertarians generally opposed to defining their terminology as politely as they have been asked? Does the word have specific meaning, or is it a non-specific pejorative?
posted by MA on
Lori, I don’t, in fact, come anywhere near any Libertarian media. I’m not an angry teenager. And you still have to give me some example of someone who is a “statist.”
posted by Lori Heine on
A statist is someone who believes government action is necessary to achieve a desirable end. This is true of both those on the left and on the right. Social conservatives, by that definition, are statists if they believe their beatific vision must be enacted by government.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m from the south and was born during segregation. I started first grade the year our school district integrated the schools (a couple of decades after the Brown decision). It’s naive to think that businesses would have hired African Americans or served minority customers if they hadn’t been forced to by law. That would still be the standard practice in much of the country had not Congress and the courts intervened. It’s a nice idea to think that people would eventually come around on civil rights but that grossly underestimates just how racist many people are and not just in the south.
posted by Jorge on
And it’s no surprise that I’d rather see civil action against establishments that discriminate over unequal public displays of affection than lawsuits and state-administered punishments.
You lost me. What’s the difference?
Look. Were this to have happened to a black couple, or an interracial couple (and racist incidents do happen), you would get people saying the exact same wish list:
–File an anti-discrimination complaint
–Defame the business
–Have the media publicize it
–Boycott
–File a lawsuit
–Write a new anti-discrimination law with more teeth
–Make death threats
–Shrug your shoulders and get over it
–Add the village idiot’s opinion here
My reaction to this story is that we’re entitled to have the same set of reactions without raising alarms that the gay rights movement is going to be the death of America in any unique way. Let’s just be the new black and live with it.
You cannot successfully sue a business in civil court for having a discriminatory PDA rule, if sexual orientation/gender identity is not a part of the civil rights code.
……
Yes you can. Contract law. No, wait, he covered that (discriminatory “rule”, not discriminatory “action”).
….
Fine. My reaction. I’m convinced. Do I care–No.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
My reaction to this story is that we’re entitled to have the same set of reactions without raising alarms that the gay rights movement is going to be the death of America in any unique way. Let’s just be the new black and live with it.
When sexual orientation is covered under Title VII and in all 50 state non-discrimination laws, then (but not until then) can gays and lesbians “just be the new black and live with it”. Right now, we aren’t protected under Title VII or non-discrimination laws in 29 of the 50 states.
posted by JohnInCA on
Other people’s comments reminded me. These people are basically saying that non-discrimination laws are double plus ungood, and that we should instead use public (not government) action to influence.
But then when there’s things like the Pizzaria incident. That never touched on government action, there was no threat of lawsuit. Everything that happened to that pizzaria was the public voicing it’s opinion, from the insults and condemntation to the cash flow. And the reaction was criticized here on IGF and other right-leaning, but supposedly gay-friendly, places.
So… damned if we use government action to seek remedy, and damned if we use public opinion and social media to seek remedy. If that’s how it’s gonna be, at least be honest: you don’t want us complaining, at all, when we get discriminated. Not publicly, not privately, not to the government. You just want us to shut up and take it.
Which, admittedly, if we’d run into any vendor who had rained on our parade while getting ready for the wedding, that’s what we would have done. Because frankly I don’t have time for little shits like that. But it’s entirely unreasonable, and in no way close to “equal treatment”, to *expect* it.
posted by Jorge on
So… damned if we use government action to seek remedy, and damned if we use public opinion and social media to seek remedy. If that’s how it’s gonna be, at least be honest: you don’t want us complaining, at all, when we get discriminated. Not publicly, not privately, not to the government. You just want us to shut up and take it.
I want lots of things, and every single time I want something I wish that I would receive it. Politics has a way of driving people to say what they want to happen more often than is necessary. And it has a way of having people come up with “rules” for why other people shouldn’t try to get what they want.
posted by Kosh III on
” homocons who make such arguments most loudly usually live in blue states or blue cities,”
Yes. Stephen, Sullivan and Co should move to super-conservative places and peddle their ware there.
I’d suggest Sylacauga AL, Rentz Ga, Meridian MS for starters.
Or maybe Laramie Wyoming; it worked out soooo well as a gay-friendly place; just ask Matthew Shepard.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes. Stephen, Sullivan and Co should move to super-conservative places and peddle their ware there.
In super-conservative places, the idea that gays and lesbians should be subject to special (read discriminatory) treatment would fall on welcoming ears. The arguments are politically expedient within conservative circles, and cuddling up to such folk is a homocon trademark.
But it wouldn’t hurt for the homocons making such arguments to go to super-conservative places and talk with gays and lesbians who actually live there — eyes might be opened.
That last observation reminds me of a tired old joke: “An Irishman walked out of a bar … No, wait, don’t laugh, it could happen.”
posted by Mike in Houston on
Laramie now has anon-discrimination ordinance of the kind that Stephen decries – including sexual orientation & gender identity/expression.
posted by Wilberforce on
I don’t know how libertarians think exactly. I only know what their actions indicate that they think. When they say freedom, they seem to mean only economic freedom, the CEO’s freedom to turn a profit. All other freedoms are subject to that.
It’s a clever trick, throwing freedom around as if they’re really concerned with it. What they seem to be concerned with is kissing up to owners and managers, probably to get a spot in the lobbying/media gravy train.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Business interests are increasingly becoming advocates of government non-discrimination protections for gays and lesbians, because it harms businesses to locate in a state that is anathema to gays and lesbians. Maybe Scott Shackford should write another piece for Reason, this time titled “Is this where business interests and libertarians part ways?”
posted by Kosh III on
“throwing freedom around as if they’re really concerned with it.”
It’s not just avowed libertarians. Conservative/Teanut/GOP do it all the time.
They yammer about “liberty” and such while striving mightily to repress and abuse anyone who is not them.
posted by JohnInCA on
Hey Lori? A statement, then a question.
Statement: For the last few days I’ve been going to Reason, checked out a few of their articles (focusing on gay rights), trying to understand the “Libertarian” angle better.
Question: In *your* opinion, how indicative are the articles and comment sections of “Libertarian” thought?
Hey MAJ/MA: I’m still not sure on what “statist” is really supposed to mean, other then a derogatory insult, but it *is* used, frequently, by the commentators at Reason who seem to self-identify as libertarians (possibly Libertarians). So it’s probably not just a Lori thing, just a modern libertarian/Libertarian thing.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“Statist” is a pejorative thrown around by glibertarians as click-bait… they breathlessly equate “state power” as violence – be it stop signs, taxes or public accommodations… today’s GOP has co-opted the language but is fine with that same state “violence” in service to shutting down women’s reproductive rights, LGBT equality, etc.
The real problem is how supine libertarians (& I don’t include Lori in this mix) are to the preemption.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm, I can’t let that one go unanswered. Why anyone would knock a party for trying to put human life over the right to have an abortion is a little beyond me. And you can put an LGBT mask on an “equality” movement, but it’s still an “equality” movement with alternating shades of wacky and normal. Are you really asking for everyone to be treated equally under the same laws, or are you simply asking for everyone to be treated the same?
posted by Doug on
” Why anyone would knock a party for trying to put human life over the right to have an abortion is a little beyond me.”
Maybe because not everyone believe that a fetus is a human life until it can reasonably survive outside the womb.
Why it it that the right wing is only concerned about ‘human life’ until it is born and then they could care less if the child is abused, starved or killed by police for playing with a toy gun in a park.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Why anyone would knock a party for trying to put human life over the right to have an abortion is a little beyond me.”
Much ink has been spilled on the topic since Roe v. Wade, so ignorance, at your age, is a choice. You don’t have to agree with other people’s views to understand them.
But sure, I’ll take the bait.
Honestly, I could come up with all sorts of reasons why I find pro-life positions abhorrent. But what it comes down to isn’t the fancy arguments, it’s not debates on when “life begins”, it’s not “fetal pain”, it’s pro-life activists.
They actively lie to women. They trick women into “pregnancy crisis centers” where they lie, lie, lie and lie some more. And they think this is their moral *duty* to lie to women about their options and the outcomes of those options. They push laws that require doctors lie to their patients. They push laws that require teachers teach *badly*, either skipping important information in school, outright lying about efficacy and chance, and so-on.
So they get teachers to lie to kids (or at least omit important information) about how to prevent pregancy, they get doctors to lie to expectant mothers, they set up centers to lie some more.
And even aside from the lies, the results of whatever good intentions might have been are disastrous. Abstinence-only education is a disaster, closing women’s health centers for poor women (because they do abortions there) leads to less pre-natal care and assistance after birth, and of course there’s the women who literally die because anti-abortion laws mean they can’t abort a toxic miscarriage, or are forced to take to term a non-viable fetus!
And they’re not even effective! More often then not, they don’t *stop* abortions, they just *delay* them! If you actually wanted to *stop* abortions, you know what you would do? Push medically accurate sex-ed in middle school with refresher courses (with more depth) in high school, easily accessible and long lasting contraception for teen girls (yep, including those kinds that Hobby Lobby finds so objectionable), and buckets of free condoms for teen boys.
You would create a culture that uses birth control frequently and correctly, rather then a culture where a dude can get away with sticking it in raw because “I don’t like the way it feels”. You create a culture where parents stop worrying (wrongly) about HPV vaccines make their girls sluts, and instead one where their girls are empowered with accurate information to make better decisions and are safeguarded (through science!) when they make poor decisions, whether from pregnancy or disease.
But going after abortion and birth control, using junk science and bullshit mandates? Not only are you “treating the symptom”, being ineffective, and violating whatever remaining ethics you had in your constant lies, you’re making it so that when someone *does* need an abortion for an “acceptable” reason, they can get it safely, quickly, and without having to jump through your idiotic bullshit guilt-tripping hoops.
But hey, aside from all that, here’s a reason that’s my own, and not just a reaction to an activist group that thrives on lies and deception and sucking at their jobs: I don’t want the government in my doctor’s office, and I don’t think it’s fair if I insert it in yours. So whether we’re talking about birth control, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, medicinal pot, or whatever, the decision of what to do should be between a patient and their doctor, not a patient, their doctor, and a representative from the government.
posted by JohnInCA on
Grarg. Second-to-last paragraph should read “they *can’t* get it […]”
posted by Jorge on
Much ink has been spilled on the topic since Roe v. Wade, so ignorance, at your age, is a choice. You don’t have to agree with other people’s views to understand them.
It is not I who am guilty of ignorance. The pro-life position is a sincere and internally consistent political position. It should be respected.
But hey, aside from all that
And I do give you credit for knowing to make a direct attack, and knowing how.
Everything you say is true. It does not change the equation about what abortion is–I’m afraid that’s an existential question, and I’m also afraid it’s a very decisive question, on both sides (I doubt Planned Parenthood and condom-inclusive sex education are perfect, either). And so I have major problems with people who attack political movements for nothing more than carrying out the mandates of political beliefs which are quite reasonable to hold.
I don’t want the government in my doctor’s office, and I don’t think it’s fair if I insert it in yours.
I fundamentally disagree with you. I’m glad you put your arguments in the order you did.
posted by JohnInCA on
“And so I have major problems with people who attack political movements for nothing more than carrying out the mandates of political beliefs which are quite reasonable to hold.”
Except that those “political movements” aren’t attacked for that. They’re attacked for all that *other* stuff I said, which is quite separate from their “mandate”. If the pro-life movement operated in an honest and ethical way it probably wouldn’t be “attacked” so much. But they have proved, for decades now they are incapable or unwilling to do so.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why anyone would knock a party for trying to put human life over the right to have an abortion is a little beyond me.
Because the Republican Party has long stood for the principle that the government, rather than individual citizens, should be the arbiter of moral decisions, no matter how personal the decision and regardless of (a) the moral/religious convictions of the individual citizen, and (b) the teaching of the individual citizen’s religion.
You and I had a long discussion on abortion in the thread Conservatives vs. Libertarians in August 2012.
In that discussion, I noted that in my view “the vast majority of abortions performed in this country are morally prohibited” but nonetheless “the abortion decision should be between one man, one woman and God … and the government should stay out of it“.
You disagreed with my position then, saying “I hold the opposite view from you on both counts. I think abortion is in most cases moral (although the scientific and spiritual murkiness on when human life actually begins leads me toward frowning upon it), but that the final authority on the matter should be the community.” and that “I’m a strong believer in legislating morality …”
I would quietly remind you, Jorge, that if you cede the power to make the decision to ban abortion to the government, you also cede the other side of the coin, the decision to mandate abortion. I think that ceding is wrong, both in constitutional terms and in terms of morality.
Our disagreement doesn’t bother me. But the assumption underlying your question does. You now seem to have reached the point, where you can’t even comprehend that others, equally sincere, might disagree with your position. Get a grip, Jorge.
posted by Jorge on
Because the Republican Party has long stood for the principle that the government, rather than individual citizens, should be the arbiter of moral decisions
You are making an irrelevant comparison between the Republican party’s political goals and its philosophy of government. The latter might be described as its belief about the appropriate way to achieve political goals.
I would quietly remind you, Jorge, that if you cede the power to make the decision to ban abortion to the government, you also cede the other side of the coin, the decision to mandate abortion.
What, you don’t think the principles that permit mandatory vaccination are broad enough to cut the fallopian tubes? tubes?
Even so, we have the Constitutional Amendment process for a reason.
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, I can assure you that I will not be voting for any Republicans in the upcoming election. And I mean ANY, at any level, or for any office. The GOP has totally lost its mind–and its soul.
posted by Lori Heine on
Reason has become increasingly right-wing. I disagree rather strenuously with many of the opinions expressed there. For example, they’re still crushing over Rand Paul. Even Paul himself admits that he’s no libertarian.
posted by Lori Heine on
“You can’t possibly be this ignorant of history.”
No, and actually I’m not.
What was done to those who attempted to persuade peacefully during the Civil Rights Movement? Was it not violence? Libertarians believe the state exists legitimately pretty much only to protect our rights and freedoms, including protecting us from force and fraud.
Because violence was being done to those who wanted only to peacefully persuade, then of course the government had a duty to step in and protect them. Not that they did a very good job of that much of the time. It is, however, the only legitimately-defensible reason government exists.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Whenever someone tells me that they are pro-life, I ask them whether or not they want their taxes increased to pay for the expanded series that would be required. Typically, these same people (with few exceptions) take the position that while the right to life is sacred, the right to health care or housing is merely negotiable.
Stephen said; “And it’s no surprise that I’d rather see civil action against establishments that discriminate over unequal public displays of affection than lawsuits and state-administered punishments.
Actually it is a surprise because you do not seem to understand how civil action work, even through you clearly want to be seen as someone who is “in the know”.
A civil lawsuit, if successful, would be “state-administered punishments”. However, if the civil right code does not include sexual orientation and gender identity, then a civil suit against a business that had a discriminatory policy against gay customers (much less employees) would probably not be successful (or even taken seriously)