Replies

SO the argument isn't that they participate in private because they feel ashamed, rather they participate in private out of respect for you and to avoid offending you.

Possible, although people often do the opposite - try to force you to accept who they are and what they do.

Try this on and see what you think.

A group of conservatives ask hotel owners to make a personal moral decision not to offer a service. Libertarians should have no problem with this. It's a business decision that the hotel owners have a right to make. This particular service is one that most people would be ashamed to admit they use. Therefore it is a service that is reasonable for a moral man to refuse to offer.

The article is posted on FR and people scream bloody murder about nanny staters and people who don't want to have fun but don't want others to have fun either. "Don't like it, don't use it" they scream. Yet nobody is defending anything on his/her own behalf.

So, a perfectly reasonable request to make a personal decison to curtail a service that causes a recognizedly shameful behavior draws a great deal of ire from people who want to defend other people's rights to the service they don't admit wanting.

Shalom.

A community private organization approaching a business to request something like you described is fine. Let the market decide, BUT this (urging the Justice Department and FBI to investigate whether some of the pay-per-view movies widely available in hotels violate federal and state obscenity laws) type of behavior does justify the scorn of people who understand that the federal government is incapable of and has no business trying to legislate or police morality. That's why you get the extreme statements about the Taliban, and communist China and the apt statements about Nanny staters. It is apparent that if they can't get their way in the market place then they will resort to using the guns of the Fed government to force their will upon those whom offend their sense of right and wrong.

If you want to use the guns of the Federal Govt. to restrict actions (given those actions are not violently or coercively depriving others of life, liberty or property) then you are a nannystater and possess a perspective that is hostile to the constitution. I don't think this describes you though, right?