Actually, no, my example does not fail. You're thinking it fails because it destroys libertarianism right before your eyes and you don't want to believe it. If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it. The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior. I do not wish to support their behavior.
There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association". What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association". Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS. Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on.
The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas.
Happy Day, huh libertarians?
If the land isn't yours, you have no such right under libertarianism. To assert such a right on land you do not own, or is publicly owned is initiation of force or fraud.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Under libertarianism you do have a right to free association. That means you do not have to do business with, give money or aid to, or be friends with anyone you don't want. It does not mean you get to banish anyone you can get a majority to vote out. That's democracy, not libertarianism.
You're in for a lifetime of disappointment unless you happen to move yourself into a hermitage in the steppes of outer Mongolia...
That argument has all the veracity of a trial lawyer working on a contingency fee.
I gave you the reasons why your example failed. The characters in your story did not adhere to libertarian principles.
"If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex.
You were told that's fine. No one will force you, to be around them. It's up to you though to isolate yourself sufficiently.
"I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it."
Sufficiently far.
" The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior."
That's not true at all.
"I do not wish to support their behavior."
Fine, don't.
"There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association".
None whatsoever. You can associate with whom you please and they can do what they please without anyone violating another's rights.
" What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association".
No! You are confusing free association with your urge to sanction their behavior. You have no right to dictate to them what is tasteful, anymore than they have a right to do that to you. That is the truth!
"Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it.
It hurts people in their imaginations only. It consumes some people, but the homos aren't consuming. It's those that dwell on the thought that do the comsuming.
"They want to have their cake and eat it too."
That's a perfectly natural and good thing.
"So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS.
Non-compliant heterosexuals? No one was attempting to force anything on them. It was the other way around. The law was rotten to begin with and they're using the manifest viciousness of those that consume themselves with images of what they are upset by as propaganda. The law is a flagrant rights violation. They know it and so do most Americans. The State of Texas set the stage and baited it.
"Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on."
The consequences they will face are not, because of this SCOTUS decision, but because they chose to violate the rights of these people before and created allowed the rights of others to be violated by coercing charity.
"The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas."
The SCOTUS is not composed of libertarians. They performed a feat of illogical construction to defeat one element of TX law. The people of TX aren't adherents of libertarianism either.
What you just witnessed was a skirmish in the war between left and right authoritarians. Both are determined to fight to the death to gain enough power to force their will, their vision on the world. Neither side gives a damn about rights. Freedom lost under a SCOTUS that imposed their abitrary will under the cover of BS.
"Happy Day, huh libertarians?"
Sure, BS reigns, so we're all happy.
Homos aren't going to ever be anything other than queer. That's the way they are. They are never going to get married, so there's no point in saying they are a threat to the institution. They are a minority. As long as free speech reigns you can counter any claim they make that says gay's OK. Once the 2 differing sides war and attempt to force their will on the other, they both become evil. What the libertarians will see are 2 groups at each others throats attempting to coerce each other into submission. The left authoritarians got their way, because the right authoritarians challenged them with pettiness.
Your battle has furthered the authoritarian cause that limits free speech. SCOTUS said, the law demeans the homos. Now I'm risk attack from these morons if I give my take on being a homo as advice and council.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)