Would you support a law calling for homosexual acts to be punishable by death? Would anyone opposed to such a law be against Conservatives by your standard?
I don't care one bit for that 2% or so of the population that is gay.
I don't base my judicial philosophy on “anything that opposes homosexuality” - there are much bigger fish to fry - like the nannyState saying a business cannot offer a toy with a child's meal - or that parents cannot circumcise - or any number of other regulations and laws that do not recognize that we have a government of limited and enumerated powers and individual liberty.
But I guess that - just as the Japanese during WWII were imprisoned without trial - to you homosexuals are a target of opportunity to curtail freedom. You are driven by emotion not logic - and seek to take the “unless you support nannyState regulations you support homosexuals”.
As Lenny Bruce pointed out “Take away the right to say F*ck and you take away the right to say “F*ck the Government!”.
The nannyStaters are usually on the left - but as you amply illustrate - we have our share on the right as well. The basis is as I have said - and you have ignored .....
You support any and all nannyState legislation so long as you agree with its aim - and disagree with nannyState legislation if you oppose its aim.
This is not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position. It is the position of a not very bright reactionary imbecile.
Forty five years of homosexual history in a libertarian America is much broader and realistic a topic than the city ordinances that you were trying to use, if they even passed.
The homosexual agenda and it’s gains, and effects, versus traditional, conservative, America is where the rubber meets the road, people can understand it, and measure it.
You don’t like it because you are on a conservative web site, and you know that such clap trap of defending their agenda is not even allowed on such a conservative site.
You just admitted in your post that you join the left on the homosexual agenda, yet you want to try and convince us that actually, it is the homosexual movement that is conservative, and freerepublic is nannyStaters on it, and that freerepublic’s stance on the homosexual agenda is “not a Conservative, consistent, or Constitutional position. It is the position of a not very bright reactionary imbecile.”
I don’t see that you differ from the libertarian platform at all.