Posted on 02/26/2014 9:18:20 AM PST by lbryce
Show me the evidence that the people of AZ think 1062 was irrelevant. 1062 had the same supportive language of religion as the First Amendment. In addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes and about a dozen other states interpret their state constitutions as extending the same protections. Please stop covering up for the spinelessness of the RINO's of AZ!
Hey now, I may be new, but believe me I’m aware of the politics of this site! I’m a Libertarian, and there’s a lot here I agree with, but not all. Is that not alright? Is healthy, respectful debate not allowed? Do I need to list the things I agree with in order to pass muster? I’ve said nothing abusive, insulting or trollish. if it would help, I’ll start commenting on other threads that show my support. Those are easy, however. It’s where the disagreement lie that I think learning happens.
There are, after all, lots of things not in the Constitution that affect us, that we have opinions about, etc. And this debate, call it what you will, is about SOCAS...the desire for those to express their religious views without interference from the state, yes?
I see your point. I also feel that, like with any philosophy, the ideal doesn’t quite work in reality. I see what you’re saying about Jim Crow laws being an imposition and overreach of the law. Very succinctly put.
That said, anti discrimination laws serve a purpose. These laws exist to protect those with less power, since this isn’t a utopia where the free market can solve everything. You can’t discriminate in housing based on race, for example. This is important because if one demographic is economically disempowered (as Blacks were at the time of the law), then they were in a position of being marginalized and kept from true equal opportunity. You’re also assuming that every business would discriminate out in the open. The free market as a regulating force only works when there is true transparency. Pure LIbertarianism, Pure Socialism, pure anything, only works in a utopian world where everyone acts fairly. To address human failings, laws and rules exist. Minimally, in my ideal world. But until such time as humans move beyond their prejudices, my feeling is that anti discrimination laws serve a purpose.
Do you actually think they would put someone on that would articulate well the supportive argument, especially without editing the interview?
Even with someone who can articulate the reasons for 1062, this is the tactic that will be shown by the interviewer after what's left on the editing floor:
A, mischaracterize it.
B, call it gay bashing.
C, attach it to the Republicans and make 'em out to be the usual racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
D, scare them into paralysis.
E, we get what we want -- and what we want is this Constitution shredded and bastardized every chance we get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.