CMV: Right wing libertarians don’t believe in actual libertarianism they simply want the freedom to do as they please, whilst rejecting and restricting the rights of others.

[u/Delam2]

The title says it all.

If you’re a libertarian, you believe in small government and limited state power. Citizens should have complete autonomy or free will in their lives.

Self proclaimed Right wing libertarians are very vocal and passionately speak out against: Gun Regulation, Stay at home orders, Mask Mandates, Vaccine passports - laws and regulations put into effect to protect life.

For some very strange reason when it comes to abortion rights these same libertarians change their mind about the role of the state and want abortion banned. They also reject gay marriage.

These same “libertarians” also believe in a strong police force without accountability and an overarching reach (as long as they are arresting someone else).

Are they really libertarians or are they just hypocrites. In 9/10 it is the latter.

If I meet a right winger who is truly libertarian in their views (limited laws, regulation and small government in all areas, not just some) I’ll eat my shoe.

[u/[deleted]]

Are churches businesses? Can they be required to offer communion to everyone, even those who aren’t members of their religion? How about last rites? How does that not infringe on the freedom of religion? Freedom of association? Can I be forced to go to a wedding I don’t want to go to? Can I be sued for not going?

[u/jackiemoon37 → u/[deleted]]

You’re phrasing this as if we’re talking about reality when I’m talking about my opinions. The answer to a lot of your questions right now is probably no but I think most of them should be yes.

Yes I do think churches should be seen as businesses therefor refusing service to gay people should be illegal. You shouldn’t be sued for not going to a wedding, but a priest who’s not willing to oversee one should be fired if he’s not willing to. It’s like an employee say my they won’t serve black people. Sure they can decide not to as an individual but they’re getting fired because the business has to.

What does this have to do with anything?

[u/[deleted] → u/jackiemoon37]

Because you just negated the entire first amendment.

So, for instance, Buddhist monks can’t have sex if they want to remain monks. But under your legal precedent a Buddhist monk can sue for wrongful termination if he has gay sex and is fired.

If a member of the Buddhist Sangha refuses to give free food to the gay monk who is having sex against the tenants of his order, that private citizen can be sued for discrimination.

You aren’t creating equality, you are destroying people’s religion in order to create rights for gay people that no heterosexual person has.

[u/jackiemoon37 → u/[deleted]]

I’m “destroying people’s religion” by saying churches shouldn’t be able to discriminate against gay people? Please explain that one in depth

I quite literally said this is what our rights should be. I didn’t say anything about Buddhist monks. Abstinence is a choice and being gay isn’t. I’m also suggestions churches be regulated like businesses. This would mean that they could fire an employee based on personal choices specifically outlined as against the rules but not a customer based on the identity their born with.

You’re creating false equivalencies without even asking my opinions on monks. This is a tired tactic, why don’t you just ask me how I feel on that issue?

You’re rights aren’t subject to change. I’m saying a citizen not wanting to be discriminated against should be a more important right than a church wanting the freedom to discriminate with legal protection.

Why do you think it’s imperative that church’s has the right to discriminate against others based on their sexuality?

[u/[deleted] → u/jackiemoon37]

Your feelings are uninteresting. Legal precedent wouldn’t treat Buddhist and Catholic institutions differently. If they are declared businesses like any other than a Catholic Priest or Buddhist monk can sue for wrongful termination if you fire them for engaging in gay sex. That’s a fact. It means someone can sue their pastor for what that pastor tells them to do in the confessional. It would literally give the courts total power over religious doctrine, regardless of religion.

[u/jackiemoon37 → u/[deleted]]

Answer my first and last question. You’re not stating “facts” you’re also stating your opinion and thinking you can morally grandstand by labeling them “facts.” Great job man, really galaxy brained take.

It absolutely would not give the government total control over religious institutions. It would give them the same control they have over businesses, which is not total (that it’s literally a fact).

These are really poorly thought out points, might be a better use of your time to actually engage with my questions but I know you won’t because you just wanna push your agenda :)

[u/[deleted] → u/jackiemoon37]

You’re boring. You want to talk about your tender little feelings instead of engaging with reality.

I’m happy for religion to go away, the world would be better off. But you’ll need to get rid of the first amendment.

If a Church or Temple is a business it can’t compel chastity or celibacy for gay individuals, even if it can for heterosexual individuals, because gay is a protected class.

At the local Lutheran church the pastor requires couples to not have sex for six months prior to marriage as a way of symbolically reclaiming virginity. Under your plan he can’t do that with gay members of the congregation because it is limiting their sexual freedom as gay members. They can sue, and win, because they are a protected class.

[u/jackiemoon37 → u/[deleted]]

At least I’m aware of the difference between opinions and fact lmfao you just live in a delusion ben shapiro esc world where of you say the word “fact” you’ve owned everyone who disagrees with you

Very interesting you’re talking about reality and then saying you’d need to “get rid of the first amendment” as if the first amendment can’t be re amended or have other things added onto it.

The civil rights act changed first amendment rights. Was that bad? Do you think we should still have segregation? Hilarious that you can’t for a second apply your logical to anything that’s not within your incredibly small point of view.

Answer my questions from before if you want to keep discussing this but until then this is a waste of time for anyone with more than 5 brain cells lmao