Replies

I whole-heartedly agree with the ideologues when they chime in about free association. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to these people, he should have that right. If an employer doesn't want to hire them, he should have that right, too. But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say, or that religious have no 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion which includes the formation of the larger family, then we part company.

Yes, clearly there are irreconcilable differences between us that we'll never agree upon.

But there are issues, deeply threatened issues, that we can agree on, like free association and 2nd Amendment rights.

Even we can agree upon some issues. When it comes to these agreeable issues, we should bury the hatchet. These California libertarians and republicans set a good example.

If a landlord doesn't want to rent to these people, he should have that right. If an employer doesn't want to hire them, he should have that right, too. But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say, or that religious have no 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion which includes the formation of the larger family, then we part company.

Your statement seems contradictory, although perhaps I am not understanding it. Do "people" have the "right" to determine that landlords and employers in fact don't have the right to rent to and hire whom they choose? If so, do they then have the right to decide, if they are so inclined, that the Boy Scouts can't refuse to associate with gays?

Or does the right to hire and employ and choose Scoutmasters as you choose trump the "people's...right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in"?

It seems to me that the two "rights" cannot both simultaneously exist.

But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say,

So, for the record, in this case, you side firmly with the people of Santa Barbara and their duly elected officials to " determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say".

Gotcha! Just want to let everyone know what side you are on, CJ.

I whole-heartedly agree with the ideologues when they chime in about free association. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to these people, he should have that right. If an employer doesn't want to hire them, he should have that right, too.

-- Refreshing to see you make a rational remark, jihad. But then you lapse into incoherence:

But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say, or that religious have no 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion which includes the formation of the larger family, then we part company.

-- I would too, if anyone 'chimed in' to actually say anything like that. Can you make some quotes of those positions being avocated on this thread? I bet not.

If a landlord doesn't want to rent to these people, he should have that right. If an employer doesn't want to hire them, he should have that right, too. But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say....then we part company.

What if 51% of the people determine that the type of society they want to live in includes a landlord being forced to rent to certain individuals, or an employer being forced to hire certain people against his will, or one that restricts your right to practice your religion? Don't these types of laws constitute the very principals you advocate -- people determining what kind of society they want to live in?