Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Quote of the day -- On True Small Government

The guy who was, at the time, the ultimate, utmost Conservative and Republican, Barry Goldwater (Google him or check him out on Wikipedia or something, if you must). He was the Convervative's Conservative. He was Conservative long before Conservative was the "cool" it is today:


Sevesteen said...

Indiana has finally got small government right on this issue--allow gay marriage, don't force people to participate in gay marriage if they are opposed--even the minor participation of baking a cake.

Missouri and Ohio (among others) have it wrong--they interfere by not allowing gay marriage, forcing the morals of old religious people on the rest of us. I've got no right to berate Indiana at least until my home state is as good.

Allowing people to participate or not as they desire is true small government. If we start seeing more than 1 or 2% of stores that refuse married gay couples buying groceries or other everyday items I'd probably support using the force of law, but not until then.

Byron Funkhouser said...

Its not a question of 'allowing' gay marriage. Its a question of ending this violation of the equal protection clause.

It may be their religious belief that some people shouldn't have equal protection under the law, but the constitution trumps their religious beliefs. We will, in fact, have equal protection under the law.

No, you may not discriminate against gays.

Mo Rage said...

I say again here, the opposite of equality is discrimination.

The people in these churches that vote against this are, whether they like it or not, discriminating against fellow Americans.

Sure, they'll say it's okay because it's against the Bible but the things the Bible was against in Leviticus alone makes this absurd.

Sevesteen said...

I am strongly in favor of gay marriage, it is absurd to get hung up on the specific language with which I'm in favor of it. I have no desire to discriminate against gays.

The government should not discriminate. Period. People can and will discriminate, with or without a law. In the unlikely chance that I get the privilege, I will discriminate against the God Hates Fags Westboro Baptist church in any way I am permitted, in any way I think I can get away with. This discrimination is based on their sincere religious belief.

I've taken wedding pictures. That should not obligate me to take wedding pictures for a Westboro Baptist wedding--or an ordinary Baptist wedding, or even Unitarian. If I want to specialize in Gay and Atheist weddings while refusing Christian weddings, that should be my privilege.

If we get to a point where bigotry is causing significant harm beyond hurt feelings then there might be an excuse for government force. Not being able to get married is significant harm--My state needs to fix that. Not being able to require a specific photographer to take your picture is not harm. I haven't seen evidence of actual occurrences of harmful discrimination that is only possible because of a religious freedom law.

I am an atheist, and not competent to judge whether someone else is following their own religion--I see tons of contradictions, picking parts of the bible to follow while abandoning others. But I also see it with the constitution--Freedom of religion is important, infringements should be subject to strict scrutiny, meaning a compelling government interest accomplished with the least restrictive means necessary. In my mind at least the examples of private religious based homophobia I've seen have not met that standard.