4 ms·

What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake fo

by jo032 6y ago

What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world

nobody9999 6y ago
>What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible: If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not. As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.
- jo032 6y ago
  again I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one. >If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not. This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on. I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support. I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
mmcwilliams 6y ago
This argument seems to intentionally ignore that the conservative-led decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the bakery.

by jo032 6y ago

nobody9999 6y ago

>What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible: If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not. As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.

jo032 6y ago
again I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one. >If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not. This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on. I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support. I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

mmcwilliams 6y ago

This argument seems to intentionally ignore that the conservative-led decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the bakery.