A woman says she’s interested in motorcycles. No problem. A man says he’s interested in babies. Someone calls the cops.
Some religious people object to the existence of gays as full persons deserving of regular ‘human-rights’ like marriage because being gay is ‘not natural’. I wonder if they even realize what natural means in the real world. If we were to live in nature, ‘nature’ wouldn’t care whether not there were gay individuals unless it effected the survival of DNA. Maybe gay humans would not be selected for, and would die out. But if that was the case, why is the ‘gay gene’ still popping up in predictable percentages today? Maybe for the same reason that it pops up in dozens of other species.
But of course that’s not what they mean. They obviously refer to the antiquated essentialist idea of ‘the natural order of things’ when they refer to something being natural or unnatural.
Why on earth is that that i’m unable to voluntarily proposition someone to perform dangerous surgery on me in order to make me into a cyborg? Oh yeah that’s right, because the useless, meddling giant overlord government will send thugs to arrest me and the other party.
Why is it that ‘baby murder’ is considered the vilest of crimes, even by those of us who dismiss abortion as a victimless crime, because fetuses lack sentience? If you hold to the opinion that fetuses lack sentience, then how exactly do you reason that newborn infants are in fact suddenly sentient? If you contend that fetuses at some stage in development become sentient, then you must be willing to also call late-term abortions murder. Otherwise there’s few reasonable grounds to choose the arbitrary status of ‘born’ as a marker of the beginning of personhood and therefore the right to life.
Further, some support the right to abort severely mentally or physically handicapped late-term fetuses. Why then do they not extend that right to include the right to kill severely mentally or physically handicapped newborns?
Had an argument over a libtard who was overjoyed that a private company was sued for refusing to sell some product to gays. Because discrimination.
First of all
On discrimination in general:
A market economy wouldn’t work without discrimination. After all, choosing any one company over another is an act of discrimination. For example, it’s not discrimination against non organic farmers if I only buy from organic farmers ?
On discrimination in company hiring or service:
Businesses don’t discriminate in either service or hiring unless they are economically retarded(in which case they will soon cease to be an extant business, all on their own) or the high costs of discrimination are subsidized by the government thru policies like minimum wage, price floors or ceilings.
But discrimination is still a bad and dangerous thing!
So into the next point, it’s fine for a customer to discriminate and boycott gay or even non-organic products, but it’s not fine for a company to boycott, or refuse to sell to gays or hippies?
Maybe we could force everyone to purchase a monthly quota of progressive products
Even if you think it’s not okay for individuals to personally boycott gay companies, how could you ever enforce that? Force people to purchase a monthly quota of gay products? Actually, It’s perfectly easy to control who consumers buy from. With a big enough government It could conceivably be done. So why wouldn’t a libtard support doing that?
So again, as an individual you are allowed to boycott anti progressive companies, but individual say religious company owners aren’t allowed to boycott you?
An argument for fully free and legal economic discrimination
My argument is simple. If free individuals are freely allowed to participate in trade between eachother, then individuals should be allowed to refuse to buy from whomever they want, and individuals should be allowed to refuse to sell to whoever they want. The burden is on you to make a reasonable argument for why only buyers but not sellers ought to be free in their enterprise.
When I made this argument the libtard argued that there are in fact times when there are valid reasons for companies should be allowed to refuse service or boycott customers….Based on arbitrary opinions of what libtards think are valid reasons for refusing service. Like Im sure they would say it’s okay for companies to boycott homophobic customers for being homophobic, but it’s not okay to boycott gay or pro-gay customers for being homophilic(or homophalic?(hawhaw)).
And besides, ‘Valid reason‘ is completely subjective. For a person with a religious life view, their valid reasons may be different than yours. What gives you the right to force your life view and it’s implicit valid reasons on them, moreso than they have the right to force their life views and their implicit valid reasons, on you?
In other words, according to libtards, it should be a criminal offense to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. Unless said religious beliefs are those of the religion called progressivism. In which case, you are actively encouraged to discriminate.