• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Good article on the Libertarian view on Gay Marriage

A

Anonymous

Guest
Here is another very concerning article involving homosexual marriage and churchs/ministers- and the problems of some of these non-discrimination statutes a lot of towns/cities are passing... But more clearly shows the differences between Repubs, Dems, and Libertarian views on the subject... Hopefully the Idaho courts will follow the Libertarian view on respecting individual rights and private property rights...

Gov’t Demands Ministers Marry Homosexuals Or Be Jailed

Posted by Austin Petersen • 19 Oct 2014


The government of Idaho is demanding ordained ministers celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time. Freedom of religion and private property in the United States is under attack from those whose agenda is to instill tolerance through the tactics of authoritarianism.


The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.

Opining here: This is a very concerning case, from a libertarian point of view centered on private property and individual liberty. Homosexual couples should be free to marry as they wish and to use any institution such as a church or civic center, to do so. However, any voluntary institution (non-governmental) should have the right to approve or deny the ceremony happening on their private property. The government should NOT have any right to discriminate against homosexual couples in any way.

Now, the government is stepping in and saying that private individuals must take part in a ritual to which they are morally opposed. That is a total violation of religious liberty and supersedes the gay couple’s desire to force a minister to marry them. And it is certainly a crime for the government to threaten fines or jail time for moral objection. The US Army even has a special out for conscientious objectors. So why is the government of Idaho trying to force others to go against their religious beliefs.

It is inherently rooted in a lack of respect for private property.

Social democrats have always praised the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they specifically praise Title II of this legislation, which is at its heart deals with the issue of private property. It reads: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation.

What this means is that the government may intrude onto private property and demand that a service or product be sold. It was meant to make sure that blacks would be able to eat at lunch counters or stay at hotels, but the fundamental philosophy is one of obligations of citizens to provide for one another and not discriminate. The modern-day version of this will be to demand ministers and businesses that serve wedding cakes serve customers regardless of their sexual preferences. If you believe that government should demand that private property owners be required to serve something they disagree with (even if for bigoted reasons), you are an authoritarian. If you believe that free citizens should be able to conscientiously object, you are libertarian.

As someone who supports the idea of gay marriage, and full equality, it’s frustrating to be associated with the gay rights movement when this is the result. What’s even more frustrating is that, since Democrats have a higher moral ground for gays, their gay lobby is one of social democracy, wealth redistribution, and lack of respect for private property.

The worst part of this all is that the Republican Party has been keeping their gay lobby at arm’s length for so many years that they’ve been rendered ineffective at advancing pro-freedom solutions. If the Republicans had incorporated the GOP’s homosexual caucuses into their ranks, maybe there would be better legislation and local governance in regards to gay rights. As for now, Social Democrats are winning the day, and no free market solutions to gay marriage that respect private property are likely to come about.

Libertarians believe that government should be out of the marriage business entirely. A major part of the problem lies with social conservatives who think that the state should define marriage. These are the authoritarian conservatives, who don’t want less government control. They value tradition over liberty, and will demand that others adhere to their traditions as well. They want to use government as a hammer in the same way that social democrats are doing in Idaho right now against the ministers. Again, both conservatives and social democrats are the threat to liberty.

Shame on the Democrats for being so insufferably economically illiterate, and shame on the Republicans for being so insufferably intolerant for other people’s sexual preferences. Shame on them both for their advancement of petty tyranny. They are the authoritarians.

Read more at TLR: Gov't Demands Ministers Marry Homosexuals Or Be Jailed | The Libertarian Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/govt-demands-ministers-marry-homosexuals-jailed/#ixzz3GhX5HOGv
Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on Facebook


Boy do I agree with this guy... A good article explaining the differences between Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians... Both the radical left and the radical right are a threat to liberty...

Opining here: This is a very concerning case, from a libertarian point of view centered on private property and individual liberty. Homosexual couples should be free to marry as they wish and to use any institution such as a church or civic center, to do so. However, any voluntary institution (non-governmental) should have the right to approve or deny the ceremony happening on their private property. The government should NOT have any right to discriminate against homosexual couples in any way.

Now, the government is stepping in and saying that private individuals must take part in a ritual to which they are morally opposed. That is a total violation of religious liberty and supersedes the gay couple’s desire to force a minister to marry them. And it is certainly a crime for the government to threaten fines or jail time for moral objection. The US Army even has a special out for conscientious objectors. So why is the government of Idaho trying to force others to go against their religious beliefs.

It is inherently rooted in a lack of respect for private property.
------------------------------------------

Libertarians believe that government should be out of the marriage business entirely. A major part of the problem lies with social conservatives who think that the state should define marriage. These are the authoritarian conservatives, who don’t want less government control. They value tradition over liberty, and will demand that others adhere to their traditions as well. They want to use government as a hammer in the same way that social democrats are doing in Idaho right now against the ministers. Again, both conservatives and social democrats are the threat to liberty.

Shame on the Democrats for being so insufferably economically illiterate, and shame on the Republicans for being so insufferably intolerant for other people’s sexual preferences. Shame on them both for their advancement of petty tyranny. They are the authoritarians.
 

Steve

Well-known member
no self respecting libertarian would have been so short sighted to not see this anti christian discrimination coming...

for you to now fret after years of US warning you of the outcome of your far left views is just a bit comically ironic...

so who do you support now? gays or Christians?
 

Steve

Well-known member
They Refused to Host a Gay Wedding on Their Farm — and Now They’re Facing a Big Fine

Owners of a family farm in Schaghticoke, New York, are being fined $13,000 for refusing to allow a gay wedding ceremony to take place on their property in 2012, just one year after the state legalized same-sex nuptials.

Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm, a family-friendly farm and special events venue, told Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple from Newark, New Jersey, that they were welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual wedding ceremony,

The Giffords live on the premises and these ceremonies are typically conducted on the first floor of their home or on the nearby property. Considering that they are Christians and consider marriage to be confined to relationships involving one man and one woman, the two weren’t comfortable hosting McCathy and Erwin’s nuptials.

An attorney for the couple told Religion News Service that the two have both employed gay staffers and hosted events for same-sex couples in the past, but that a gay wedding ceremony in their home was too close for comfort.

McCarthy and Erwin weren’t happy with this rejection, so they took their complaint to the New York’s Division of Human Rights, claiming that they were discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.

The judge and commissioner each had the opportunity to reconsider the Giffords’ religious rights after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that businesses can exercise the religious rights of their owners in Hobby Lobby decision of June 30, yet failed to do so,” Trainor told the New York Law Journal.

gay mafia strikes again....
 

Steve

Well-known member
A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.

In a letter to the administrator of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property, the state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, declined to recertify the pavilion as eligible for a real estate tax exemption it has enjoyed since 1989 under the state’s Green Acres Program, but did renew the tax-exempt status of the rest of the boardwalk and the beach, also owned by the association.

The issue arose after the association, which has owned the land, the beach and 1,000 feet of the sea itself since 1870, rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Boardwalk Pavilion.

The couples complained to the State Division on Civil Rights, which began a discrimination investigation. The association sued the state, claiming that the investigation violated its First Amendment rights because civil unions were contrary to the beliefs of the United Methodist Church.

A federal district court judge refused last month to halt the investigation.

The pavilion, which is used largely for Sunday church services and youth ministry programs, has also been a place where boardwalk strollers are welcome to sit and relax. “But never was the general public granted unfettered right to use the pavilion in any way it chooses (e.g., to reserve it for an exclusive use such as a civil union ceremony),” Mr. Behrens wrote.

it won't be long before church's are sued and intimidated as well...

thanks liberals...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
It appears that everybody has rights EXCEPT the people who have a religious or moral objection to homosexual marriage... even though the NY couple live on site and are certainly paying property taxes, etc. They apparently have NO SAY on what does or doesn't transpire on their own property. That's bullsh!t.

The Fatman's/Libertarian's views on the marriage thing concerning a$$ pirates is wrong and sickening. The fact that courts and lawmakers feel similarly is extra sickening.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Just wait until they determine that "pedophiles were born like that"


Used to be that homosexuality was considered a sexual deviancy, but...


The change in the DSM, a kind of Bible among medical professionals, lawmakers, and drug and insurance companies, doesn't just apply to pedophilia, but to several other deviant sexual desires listed in the manual. It represents "a subtle but crucial difference that makes it possible for an individual to engage in consensual atypical sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder," explains the APA in its DSM-5 Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878.html
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Ughhh, OT, explain the difference between radical left and the rest of the left. They're like running sheep. If you have 1 critter out, the entire herd will be out.

Lotsa lefties have opposed polygamous marriages, so I can't conclude lefties care about anything more than division politics. Some of the righties that oppose gay marriage do so for religious reasons, but remember these vilified pubs don't want to chop off fags heads - those would be the gentle Muslims.

Let's be honest. This issue matters because of spouse benefits of social stupidity. The best solution here is to end the ponzie scheme, and let private individuals keep their own resources and bequithe them to whomever they wish. Why does the left hate queers so much they insist queers must suffer the financial ruin of social stupidity?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Ughhh, OT, explain the difference between radical left and the rest of the left. They're like running sheep. If you have 1 critter out, the entire herd will be out.

Lotsa lefties have opposed polygamous marriages, so I can't conclude lefties care about anything more than division politics. Some of the righties that oppose gay marriage do so for religious reasons, but remember these vilified pubs don't want to chop off fags heads - those would be the gentle Muslims.

Let's be honest. This issue matters because of spouse benefits of social stupidity. The best solution here is to end the ponzie scheme, and let private individuals keep their own resources and bequithe them to whomever they wish. Why does the left hate queers so much they insist queers must suffer the financial ruin of social stupidity?

Essentially you are right... And that is the Libertarian and my take on the issue-- That government should have never stuck their nose into the marriage issue in the first place and used marriage as a template for so many economical and benefits issues...

But now that they have- in order to cure their constitutional mistake- it is easier to change 1 law than 1,000 laws- and essentially that is what the SCOTUS did....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
You talk out of one side of your mouth, but you sure appear to be extremely intrigued by homosexuality, teabagging, same sex marriage, etc.

If it was possible to have a closet that big, it looks like you'd have one to come out of.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Easier shouldn't have priority over right. Look how little deference is given to easier in civil rights issues. I'm suspicous the Supreme Court refuses to slap down federal government tyrany.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Traveler said:
Too bad the Libertarians aren't more concerned with the effect some of their stands will have on innocent children.

They never look far enough ahead to see things like that coming. :roll: Sad.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Mike said:
Traveler said:
Too bad the Libertarians aren't more concerned with the effect some of their stands will have on innocent children.

They never look far enough ahead to see things like that coming. :roll: Sad.

Still, I would choose them over the democrat communists currently ruining things.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Hey OT,

Few questions:

Do you believe that marriage should be regulated by the state or by the federal government?

Why is it the left/liberal independents want to live in a democracy until it isn't convenient and then they want unelected federal judges to decide the fate of the state's people?


23 Judges overturning the votes of 41 million people. Is that not disenfranchisement?

What legal basis do these rogue judges have to justify their decisions?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
Hey OT,

Few questions:

Do you believe that marriage should be regulated by the state or by the federal government?

Why is it the left/liberal independents want to live in a democracy until it isn't convenient and then they want unelected federal judges to decide the fate of the state's people?


23 Judges overturning the votes of 41 million people. Is that not disenfranchisement?

What legal basis do these rogue judges have to justify their decisions?


Is it necessary for government at any level to have much regulation in marriage?.... The gay discrimination would not be an issue except for the fact over a 1000 economic and benefits laws were tied to the marriage issue by local, state, and federal governments ...

Why do extremists and so called "constitutionalists" claim they believe in the Constitution and Judges enforcing the countries following of the Constitution--- until its an issue they disagree with :???: ...

The legal basis of these "rogue " judges (which happens to be considered a conservative court with the majority appointed by Republican Presidents) is the Constitution-- and over 200 years of their precedent in doing the same thing....

And according to most polls right now- if the issue had gone to a national vote there is a very good chance the voters would have allowed gay marriage by vote... In the polling a majority of the nation support the SCOTUS ruling -- One of the reasons our forefathers kept the Constitution somewhat vague and open to interpretation so it could exist forever as a "living" document to handle the issues of an ever changing world ...



Poll: Majority support SCOTUS gay marriage decision


By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 10/17/14 7:58 AM EDT
A majority of Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage to proceed in multiple states, a new poll says.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Friday, 56 percent of Americans support the court’s decision earlier this month, compared with 38 percent who oppose it.

The survey is another sign that the American electorate has grown increasingly more receptive to same-sex marriage in recent years. In May, Gallup reported that support for gay marriage was at an all-time high at 55 percent, while a separate ABC News/Washington Post June survey reported that 56 percent of Americans support it — the same number who approve of the Supreme Court’s decision.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-111974.html#ixzz3HpRtgcCs
 
Top