Dr. Watson said:

---

It marks you as a person who wishes to impose your personal morality on other individuals and hold them as lesser than you. That's not anti-Christian unless you define your faith by opposition to others living their lives.

---

And those wishing to impose their personal morality on us? Right side of history? To the victors go the spoils?

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

It marks you as a person who wishes to impose your personal morality on other individuals and hold them as lesser than you. That's not anti-Christian unless you define your faith by opposition to others living their lives.

---

And those wishing to impose their personal morality on us? Right side of history? To the victors go the spoils?

---

Individual liberty that doesn't impact you? Not my problem if your jimmies get rustled in that case.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

It marks you as a person who wishes to impose your personal morality on other individuals and hold them as lesser than you. That's not anti-Christian unless you define your faith by opposition to others living their lives.

---

And those wishing to impose their personal morality on us? Right side of history? To the victors go the spoils?

---

Individual liberty that doesn't impact you? Not my problem if your jimmies get rustled in that case.

---

But when it impacts us, too bad because thats the law, essentially?

You aren't going to have a society without sacrificing some liberty. I think that's a pretty basic acknowledgment in Locke. The question is whether the sacrifice can be justified. Discriminating against gay people doesn't meet that standard.

Dr. Watson said:

---

It marks you as a person who wishes to impose your personal morality on other individuals and hold them as lesser than you. That's not anti-Christian unless you define your faith by opposition to others living their lives.

---

I never said anything about imposing my morality on anyone. I never proposed preventing SSM, treating homosexuals different from other individuals, or anything like that. I just said that I have an opinion that its immoral.

Even if I believe that the state should stay out of the marriage business, the very fact that I have the opinion that homosexuality is immoral is considered rude. There is no equal tolerance here. You either celebrate the right for people to define sexuality however they want, or you are a bigot.

I just have a hard time as seeing that as anything less than anti-Christian. My viewpoint is not considered or tolerated.

Dr. Watson said:

---

You aren't going to have a society without sacrificing some liberty. I think that's a pretty basic acknowledgment in Locke. The question is whether the sacrifice can be justified. Discriminating against gay people doesn't meet that standard.

---

He also claims that people own themselves and their own labor. Im sure Locke would be puzzled by the absurdity of a 6 figure fine leveled at a baker for not making a homosexual wedding cake.

Youre talking out of both sides of your mouth, you go from "as long as it doesnt impact you, who cares" to "we have laws, suck it up".

Locke would certainly be surprised by laws protecting homosexuals from abuse. But he wouldn't be surprised at all by laws governing commerce. I'm not living in a construct of pure theory. I'm living in a complex society where the guiding principle should be individual liberty, but that conflicts and complexities in society will necessitate different approaches depending on the circumstances.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Locke would certainly be surprised by laws protecting homosexuals from abuse. But he wouldn't be surprised at all by laws governing commerce. I'm not living in a construct of pure theory. I'm living in a complex society where the guiding principle should be individual liberty, but that conflicts and complexities in society will necessitate different approaches depending on the circumstances.

---

Those circumstances and complexities being the overriding of one's personal morality by another, which was the entire point of this tangent.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Locke would certainly be surprised by laws protecting homosexuals from abuse. But he wouldn't be surprised at all by laws governing commerce. I'm not living in a construct of pure theory. I'm living in a complex society where the guiding principle should be individual liberty, but that conflicts and complexities in society will necessitate different approaches depending on the circumstances.

---

Like that excise tax on cola. Complex societies can't really survive without imposing on the liberties of fatties feeding their sugar addiction.

I find laws like that stupid. I'm not one to support most decisions by government, despite what people on the politics board believe.

AstroAg17 said:

---

It does not override your mortality when others have the right to do things you disagree with.

---

No it doesn't, if I'm forced to be an agent in their decision it does, no?

If an employee wants to have an abortion, and can't afford one; and the goverment comes to me and says "you have to pay for her abortion" is that infringing upon my morality?

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

It does not override your mortality when others have the right to do things you disagree with.

---

No it doesn't, if I'm forced to be an agent in their decision it does, no?

If an employee wants to have an abortion, and can't afford one; and the goverment comes to me and says "you have to pay for her abortion" is that infringing upon my morality?

---

Thinking out loud on this one. . .

I don't like the idea of the government telling a company that they must cover the cost of abortion either, but is it fair to extend this argument to other drugs, procedures, treatments?

Is a company run by a Scientologist or Christian Scientist required to provide any formal healthcare to its employees? If a company may exclude certain treatments, drugs, or procedures on account of moral infringement, can that company choose to exclude treatments that its employees are likely to need? If I run a small-ish company and my bottom line is being hurt by a handful of employees going through terribly expensive cancer treatments, can I decide to have an 'epiphany' from God that says that treating cancer is morally wrong?

It seems to me that government regulations on what must be covered by basic healthcare is intended to protect employees and is not a part of a government conspiracy to force Christians to use contraception and have abortions.

Maybe the answer is to not have the regulation at all and let the market for jobs self regulate. . . . if you want good people, you better provide good healthcare. I think there is merit in this line of thought. However, there is another part of me that thinks that people in power are not likely to give a damn about their employees unless you force them to. We don't have to be entirely hypothetical when we talk about this - look at how people treated their employees during the Industrial Revolution when there were no regulations.

I don't like the idea of the government telling any company that they MUST provide health insurance coverage at all. It makes it much worse when they then set restrictions and requirements on what that health insurance must cover or not cover and even how much the company is willing to pay for it before they are penalized with even more taxes.

Let people buy their health insurance ala-carte and across state lines; or join/create private cost-sharing organizations with their own requirements and costs for joining and participating.

Let the market work rather than trying to constrict it and use it for social engineering and vote-buying.

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

In principle, I agree.

Is there any danger in not setting a minimum to what a health care package must cover? Its fine and good to say that people can change their jobs and that the market can regulate itself. . . .but what incentive does a company have to provide good insurance to its employees if the quality of health care coverage is very low? Employees can do what? Switch from a job with terrible health coverage to one with slightly less terrible health coverage.

I don't completely disagree with you - I am, in part, just playing devil's advocate here. In a system without any regulation, how to you prevent the healthcare version of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

Agreed. Just like it's none of the government's business what substances I choose to put in my body, or the genitalia of the one I choose to marry, or what restroom I use, or what I choose to do with a red/white/blue piece of fabric, etc.

I'll never understand atheist evangelicalism.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Guadaloop474 said:
It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

Agreed. Just like it's none of the government's business what substances I choose to put in my body, or the genitalia of the one I choose to marry, or what restroom I use, or what I choose to do with a red/white/blue piece of fabric, etc.

---

At my previous job I was talking to a coworker (a very liberal muslim woman, yeah, how about that!) about the upcoming election. Knowing that I at least appeared to be a conservative, she was telling me all the reasons Trump was a horrible person. I think I surprised by agreeing completely but stating Hilary was an even worse option so I am most likely going to vote libertarian. She asked me about libertarianism. My response was:

"Libertarianism is being for the right of a gay married couple to be able to own a legal mariajuana farm with a closet full of assault weapons so that they can defend their minimally taxed property". I like to think I made an impression on her.

RetiredAg said:

---

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

Agreed. Just like it's none of the government's business what substances I choose to put in my body, or the genitalia of the one I choose to marry, or what restroom I use, or what I choose to do with a red/white/blue piece of fabric, etc.

---

Here's my point; I don't mind if the government says "we're taking our hand out of marriage", I have a problem with the government saying "we're going to be in the marriage game, and we're going to redefine marriage"

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

In principle, I agree.

Is there any danger in not setting a minimum to what a health care package must cover? Its fine and good to say that people can change their jobs and that the market can regulate itself. . . .but what incentive does a company have to provide good insurance to its employees if the quality of health care coverage is very low? Employees can do what? Switch from a job with terrible health coverage to one with slightly less terrible health coverage.

I don't completely disagree with you - I am, in part, just playing devil's advocate here. In a system without any regulation, how to you prevent the healthcare version of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?

---

I think that there absolutely needs to be regulation about effective communication of benefits and following up to your promises.

For example, we need to have a situation where "Deductible" has a defined meaning, with no squishyness for it to be multiplied x10 if you happen to come down with a rare form of cancer hidden in the fine print.

But, what we currently have is an over-regulation about what must be covered for free in an insurance plan driving up the price of insurance on everyone.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

Agreed. Just like it's none of the government's business what substances I choose to put in my body, or the genitalia of the one I choose to marry, or what restroom I use, or what I choose to do with a red/white/blue piece of fabric, etc.

---

Here's my point; I don't mind if the government says "we're taking our hand out of marriage", I have a problem with the government saying "we're going to be in the marriage game, and we're going to redefine marriage"

---

See, the way I see it, I couldn't care less how the government defines marriage. Just don't force churches to redefine it as well. If the state wants to say a man can marry a toaster, so be it. Means nothing to me. Just don't force churches to violate their own fundamental definition of marriage.

Sorry though. Certainly wasn't trying to make this a SSM discussion. I'll leave that to seamaster.

Quote:

---

At my previous job I was talking to a coworker (a very liberal muslim woman, yeah, how about that!) about the upcoming election. Knowing that I at least appeared to be a conservative, she was telling me all the reasons Trump was a horrible person. I think I surprised by agreeing completely but stating Hilary was an even worse option so I am most likely going to vote libertarian. She asked me about libertarianism. My response was:

"Libertarianism is being for the right of a gay married couple to be able to own a legal mariajuana farm with a closet full of assault weapons so that they can defend their minimally taxed property". I like to think I made an impression on her.

---

I was a hardcore libertarian before becoming a voluntaryist. It's like they say, you know what the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is? 6 months.

Quote:

---

I was a hardcore libertarian before becoming a voluntaryist. It's like they say, you know what the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is? 6 months.

---

I'd say that I'm a "little l" libertarian rather than a Libertarian, if you catch my drift. No matter what sport you're playing, you still need to have a neutral ref on the field.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

I was a hardcore libertarian before becoming a voluntaryist. It's like they say, you know what the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is? 6 months.

---

I'd say that I'm a "little l" libertarian rather than a Libertarian, if you catch my drift. No matter what sport you're playing, you still need to have a neutral ref on the field.

---

I flirt with libertarianism, but I think the government's role is to create laws in-line with the natural laws of the world; and to protect the natural rights of citizens. I don't agree with the "people should be be able to do whatever they want without consequence if it doesn't hurt anyone else" line of thinking. If that makes me big government, then so be it.

Quote:

---

If that makes me big government, then so be it.

---

It's none of the federal government's business what is in anybody's health care package because health care is not in the US Constitution, anywhere.

Likewise, neither is marriage.

The liberal camel is sticking its nose in the tent in these two areas, and it just doesn't belong in any of things that are not in the US Constitution.

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the federal government's business what is in anybody's health care package because health care is not in the US Constitution, anywhere.

Likewise, neither is marriage.

The liberal camel is sticking its nose in the tent in these two areas, and it just doesn't belong in any of things that are not in the US Constitution.

---

Great. Glad you support a repeal of all federal drug prohibition.

Woo! Guad is finally for legalizing all drugs.

This is how I've always pictured Guad

letters at random said:

---

I'll never understand atheist evangelicalism.

---

We are in a predominantly religious society. I don't see anything wrong with reaching out to other non believers to help join like-minded people. Now, if they stood at the Alamo and gave atheist sermons through a bullhorn you may have a point.

I was just thinking of the article in the OP. While I support anyone's ability to withhold their money from any company or state that does something they don't like, I think they missed an excellent opportunity here. First, I think going about it as they did only guaranteed even greater exposure for the billboard. Second, I think it would have been more productive to use this to spark a dialogue between the two sides. This would have ended up spreading the gospel to those that are non-believers.