We, as a society, have determined that being gay and loving who you want is OK. Almost 70% of all Americans believe gay marriage is the right thing to do.
Government-compelled behavior is nothing new in this country, you can and can't do lots of things.
That doesn't seem uncomfortable to me. I like that he can generally change his mind about things. He has much more difficult and challenging conversations with people a lot smarter than Jim Jefferies, and who have changed his mind on things.
To dev's other point: I agree he should probably take a break for awhile. It's kinda devolving into talking points and sound bites lately. His positions have been stated and restated (and misconstrued and taken out of context) a million times already. Show me what else you got.
run2death wrote:We, as a society, have determined that being gay and loving who you want is OK. Almost 70% of all Americans believe gay marriage is the right thing to do.
Government-compelled behavior is nothing new in this country, you can and can't do lots of things.
I'm not really interested in what you are the government thinks is ok for me to do with my own life, and I don't care if there is a precedent for government compulsion or if 99% of the country thinks it's ok to curb my rights. There absolutely is a precedent, though, and it's mostly terrible.
That was pretty insulting, I was honestly having problems reading your previous post.
Basically I don't think rights are determined by majority consent, so it's not really relevant to me what society has decided is ok and what isn't when it comes to individual rights.
On the other hand, I don't buy the libertarian argument that these racist businesses would be outcompeted by more open businesses. That wouldn't be true in the segregationist era. On the other, other hand, if blacks were free from (often government and mob enforced) tyranny and were able to start their own businesses and operate in the same public spaces without being terrorized, then there wouldn't be a problem, and on a broader scale the most inclusive businesses would dominate eventually.
That was pretty insulting, I was honestly having problems reading your previous post.
Basically I don't think rights are determined by majority consent, so it's not really relevant to me what society has decided is ok and what isn't when it comes to individual rights.
So then how are rights determined? If society doesn't decide , then what does?
run2death wrote:We, as a society, have determined that being gay and loving who you want is OK. Almost 70% of all Americans believe gay marriage is the right thing to do.
Government-compelled behavior is nothing new in this country, you can and can't do lots of things.
It’s ignorant to not make the cake, but we allow religion to influence commerce in many areas. What you should ask yourself is which harm / slippery slope trumps (how toxic is that word now?) the other: the hurt feelings of the discrimination victims or the government forcing someone to violate their widely held religious principles? I can see arguments on both sides. But the point is that the comparison with racial discrimination is not a completely fair one in that it presumes hate is the sole motivation.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
That was pretty insulting, I was honestly having problems reading your previous post.
Basically I don't think rights are determined by majority consent, so it's not really relevant to me what society has decided is ok and what isn't when it comes to individual rights.
So then how are rights determined? If society doesn't decide , then what does?
Oh that's a big question...
I'm a big "negative rights" guy, and don't think anyone has a right to compel others to do anything, but I'm full of contradictions and compromises so I try not to be too idealistic about it.
