I Love My Dead Gay Son...

[RS Davis]

Guest-Old said:

Right there guys.

Thanks. We try.

Guest-Old said:

No business should ever get government funding. Never.

One reason (which should be clear to almost all like-mind lib.) is because whatever your money (taxes) is being used for you won’t agree 100% with.

The issue of whether or not government fund should go to companies that discriminate is not even an issue IMO. I know that sounds mean but that’s how I feel.

It's not mean. It's right. They are a private business, and they can do with their property what they like. I'd hate for the government to tell me who I have to sell my car to, or whom to hire to paint my house, and neither should they tell me who to employ in any other way.

Likewise, the government should not take my money and give it to a business that I haven't freely chosen to give it to. If they can't satisfy my needs, they shouldn't get my money. This includes if they discriminate against gay people. There are several places I refuse to go for that very reason.

In fact, I may have to explain to my son one day why he cannot be a scout. Such is the price of freedom.

- Rick

[outgirl]

Guest-Old said:

The issue of whether or not government fund should go to companies that discriminate is not even an issue IMO. I know that sounds mean but that’s how I feel.

Well it may not be an issue for you. This is the biggest problem that I have with Libertarians. You can never address the problem as it exists. You may not believe that the gov't should provide funding to corporations but the fact remains that it does so with regularity. The fact is that this is not YOUR issue. This is very much an issue for millions of gays and lesbians in this country.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

Well it may not be an issue for you. This is the biggest problem that I have with Libertarians. You can never address the problem as it exists. You may not believe that the gov't should provide funding to corporations but the fact remains that it does so with regularity. The fact is that this is not YOUR issue. This is very much an issue for millions of gays and lesbians in this country.

With all due respect, this is everyone's issue, and libertarians are addressing it every day, calling for an end to Federal funding of business.

- Rick

[outgirl]

RS said:

With all due respect, this is everyone's issue, and libertarians are addressing it every day, calling for an end to Federal funding of business.

- Rick

With all due respect Rick, You need to be telling this to old TS because I am very aware of the importance of this issue. However, the issue I am addressing is whether the gov't has the right or responsibility to protect it's citizens from discrimination in the work force, which was what your original topic was. The issue of gov't funding of corporate America is a separate issue and one that I have not commented on except with regards to discrimination. You speak of the price of Freedom. What is freedom to you. Does it mean that everyone has the right to run around doing whatever the fuck they want to? Being able to shit on anyone that you choose ? I don't believe that.

[emilysrevolution]

Libertarians are the beautiful dreamers. They believe that if we all have the right to do whatever we want, we'll do the right things (whatever those are). They trust too much I think. Is anarchy the price of freedom as they would have it? Don't laws grant freedoms historically in this country?

So what is the point of this blog? Is this about ending corporate welfare or equal rights? If we end corporate welfare, how do we know that companies will do the right thing and hire people based on their qualifications and not their lover or their color? If they don't obey a person's fundamental right to equal treatment under the law, how would our government enforce these laws?

As a nation, should not our laws reflect our ideals? How do we teach our children that discrimination is wrong, or our adults for that matter, if not through laws.

There are many prices to freedom depending on the way one defines it. I believe, though, that there is an accountability to freedom that bades we vigilently try to improve ourselves, thus becoming more free.

So, to sum up, YES, a federally funded company should have to comply with anti-discrimination laws and since we do at this time have federally funded companies, this issue applies. Furthermore, all companies in this country should adhere to anti-discrimination laws because anthing else is injustice to freedom but of course affirmative action is an utter failure. I am not beyond believing there is a answer to this problem somewhere but I admit I do not necessarily have it myself. I have ideas. This entire country was sort of founded that way, no?

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

With all due respect Rick, You need to be telling this to old TS because I am very aware of the importance of this issue. However, the issue I am addressing is whether the gov't has the right or responsibility to protect it's citizens from discrimination in the work force, which was what your original topic was. The issue of gov't funding of corporate America is a separate issue and one that I have not commented on except with regards to discrimination. You speak of the price of Freedom. What is freedom to you. Does it mean that everyone has the right to run around doing whatever the fuck they want to? Being able to shit on anyone that you choose ? I don't believe that.

We have no right to not be offended or insulted. What we have the right to is ourselves and our property. A natural extension of that right is the right to do what we will with our property. If I want to not hire, say, Christians, that is my right. It's my business. Anything else is not freedom.

The natural inversion of the theory that we can force businesses to hire people they don't want to hire is that we can force people to work for someone they don't want to work for. Logically, they go hand-in-hand, and morally, they are indistinguishable.

Now, I doubt you would find it fair to force someone to work somewhere they don't want to work. It is forcing someone to share their property - in this case, their time, knowledge, and labor - with someone else against their will.

The inverse is, forcing someone to share their property - in that case, their time, money, and labor - with someone against their will.

One cannot differentiate and remain intellectually or morally honest. If we don't do business with each other voluntarily, we are not free.

- Rick

[RS Davis]

emilysrevolution said:

Libertarians are the beautiful dreamers. They believe that if we all have the right to do whatever we want, we'll do the right things (whatever those are). They trust too much I think. Is anarchy the price of freedom as they would have it? Don't laws grant freedoms historically in this country?

No. Laws protect and secure freedoms that already exist naturally. That is why for the majority of the history of this country, we spoke of "discovering" law, rather than creating it. We discover these laws to protect and expand our freedoms, and, to quote someone smarter than I, when those laws and institutions are destructive to the end of protecting and securing freedom, we have both the right and responsability to "alter or abolish" those laws and institutions.

Libertarians do not expect freedom to result in everyone doing what they ought to do. But neither do we believe that the lack of freedom we have now results in everyone doing what they ought.

We believe that only when man is free, can there be any virtue in his actions.

emilysrevolution said:

So what is the point of this blog? Is this about ending corporate welfare or equal rights? If we end corporate welfare, how do we know that companies will do the right thing and hire people based on their qualifications and not their lover or their color? If they don't obey a person's fundamental right to equal treatment under the law, how would our government enforce these laws?

As a nation, should not our laws reflect our ideals? How do we teach our children that discrimination is wrong, or our adults for that matter, if not through laws.

Well, I sure don't look to the government to teach Connor morality. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Besides, if our laws reflect our ideals, then gay marriage won't be coming for a long time. No, we appeal to something higher in that case, which are our natural rights.

Laws should do nothing but protect us from force, fraud, and theft. Anything else requires us to not be free to choose the course of our own destinies. Anything else is tyranny, whether it be dictatorial tyranny or the tyranny of the majority (like slavery).

emilysrevolution said:

There are many prices to freedom depending on the way one defines it. I believe, though, that there is an accountability to freedom that bades we vigilently try to improve ourselves, thus becoming more free.

So, to sum up, YES, a federally funded company should have to comply with anti-discrimination laws and since we do at this time have federally funded companies, this issue applies. Furthermore, all companies in this country should adhere to anti-discrimination laws because anthing else is injustice to freedom but of course affirmative action is an utter failure. I am not beyond believing there is a answer to this problem somewhere but I admit I do not necessarily have it myself. I have ideas. This entire country was sort of founded that way, no?

Libertarians agree with you that with freedom comes equal responsability - they are inseperable. Affirmative Action is a dismal failure because no good comes from forcing people's hand. Like God left us free to choose as a neccessary precurser to virtue, so it works among us and in our institutions, as well.

- Rick

[RS Davis]

In regards to the "all due respect" phrase that has been used in this thread, it has been employed because respect is most certainly, unequivocally, and enthusiastically due.

- Rick

[outgirl]

I continue to disagree with you on this subject and I believe most people belonging to minority groups that have been subjected to discrimination would feel the same. Our individual background and experiences are the basis for the ideals and values that we adopt. In the world as you believe it should be, we would still have separate restrooms for blacks and whites and women would still be left out of the voting process. The freedom that you speak of lacks humanity.

[Dr Snootch]

outgirl said:

I continue to disagree with you on this subject and I believe most people belonging to minority groups that have been subjected to discrimination would feel the same. Our individual background and experiences are the basis for the ideals and values that we adopt. In the world as you believe it should be, we would still have separate restrooms for blacks and whites and women would still be left out of the voting process. The freedom that you speak of lacks humanity.

We would absolutely not have separate bathrooms for anyone (except women ;D) and women would, of course, have the right to vote. The government gave us Jim Crow laws which ordered that whites and blacks must have separate facilities. Under Libertarians, the government would not have the power to make those kinds of laws. Power that they still have today.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

I continue to disagree with you on this subject and I believe most people belonging to minority groups that have been subjected to discrimination would feel the same. Our individual background and experiences are the basis for the ideals and values that we adopt. In the world as you believe it should be, we would still have separate restrooms for blacks and whites and women would still be left out of the voting process. The freedom that you speak of lacks humanity.

Are you talking to me? Were I alive at the time, I would have most certainly been against Jim Crowe and for women's suffrage. Why would you say such a thing?

- Rick

[outgirl]

RS said:

Are you talking to me? Were I alive at the time, I would have most certainly been against Jim Crowe and for women's suffrage. Why would you say such a thing?

- Rick

Sorry baby but you pissed me off and you know how I can be. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject. We disagee. I believe that laws should be in place to protect it's citizens from discrimination in the work force. There is nothing that you can say to change my view. I still love you.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

Sorry baby but you pissed me off and you know how I can be. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject. We disagee. I believe that laws should be in place to protect it's citizens from discrimination in the work force. There is nothing that you can say to change my view. I still love you.

Yeah, me too. I never realized you were getting so mad. It seemed like such a friendly discussion before that.

BTW, the reason I would have been for women's suffrage and against Jim Crow is the same reason I am against this - it is the government forcing people to discriminate, or even flat out government discrimination.

- Rick

[whatever]

Ah, this thread is so cool, thanks for pm'ing me today Rick

The title is a laugh, first I have to remember to say, what was the movie that came from, "The Heathers"? That's a one-line funny.

There has been so much good disscusion on this already. My head is smoking! I've been trying to think of a way to relate the two sides here, but haven't yet. I agree with your Libertarian view Rick.

Now I tried to put in perspective of me, a woman, having been in the military in a non-traditional field. Aircraft electronics. Was it being forced to hire women that got me in the door? I think so, but I also think this differs in that it wasn't partially tax-funded; it was all tax-funded. It was public service, and why should anyone not have the right to be considered? It's getting a little muddy for me here on this one!

But imho:
Anyone should be alllowed to get married in this country. As a side thought, on top of everything else, if they could move to another country and get married, why are we being so backward here? Makes me want to say, "Hey, I thought we were free, I thought we were the free ones." I know, I'm preaching to the choir for the most part I'm sure.

About the Constitutional amendment "Idea"; could that be any more transparent? Scary!

Civil unions, yeah, I can't believe it's anything other than seperate but equal. As with most concessions, it's a slap in the face. The way the states are moving though, I think that slap isn't going to hurt.

Have to add; don't you just love the people who are standing up for this?

Can you imagine saying, in America "Someone is going to be arrested today for marrying two people." Two rational adults. Two people who don't want to hurt anyone or anything in any way, and can be held completely responsible for each other. I think about what that means. Unbelievable. It might be your job, but that doesn't make it right. Again.

I'm still having a difficult time with the business receiving tax dollars and then not being "fair" with them. That could be seen as contratual violation on the part of the business and the government, on us. No, that makes it more confusing. Easiest to not dole out the money to them, any way you go.

[Dr Snootch]

whatever said:

Now I tried to put in perspective of me, a woman, having been in the military in a non-traditional field. Aircraft electronics. Was it being forced to hire women that got me in the door? I think so, but I also think this differs in that it wasn't partially tax-funded; it was all tax-funded. It was public service, and why should anyone not have the right to be considered? It's getting a little muddy for me here on this one!

I agree that anyone who wants to work for the government or military should be allowed. No discrimination. Even in the perfect Libertarian world there would be some tax-funded things and people working those jobs should be free from discrimination, absolutely.