Message from @Beemann
Discord ID: 514841344682885133
That's what I vote for when I vote democrat. I'm economically on the right but I vote democrat mostly to protect my right to agency and to freely associate how I wish.
Specifically how you wish. I'm going to take a stab and say you wouldn't necessarily support the rights of others to freely associate how they wish, depending on what they wanted.
Wait, so is the implication here that Dems never take away rights and Repubs never protect them?
As long as we're not talking conspiracy to cause harm or other situations where danger to others is involved, I do support such rights to associate
No, Beemann
Both sides are f'ing hypocrites
The implication is that the Democrats protect the rights she wants, and the Republicans do not.
I want a side that combines both
I am a gun enthusiast
I believe people have the right to have prejudices
And practice them?
As long as they are not acting in a government capacity and with some protections for provision of basic services, yes Bookworm
Right. So, I think we're running into a different use of communication.
Hobby Lobby should be able to ask two men who kiss in thier store to please leave
A waffle House should be able to tell a black man that they don't serve thier kind
Any 'right' which is able to be justly limited or constrained is, in essence, a privilege. A right, by my understanding, would be innate to a human, and could not be justly constrained in any capacity.
But a grocer for the only grocery store in a small town should not be able to refuse service
Ah, so you believe the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
Nor should a county clerk as a government agent
I believe the Civil Rights Act has elements that could now be reconsidered
It's like anti-monopolization. The less competition, the less control you have.
Because there are basic services that I believe society can and should place protections upon. Basic food, shelter, utilities, etc.
We live in an era where people can deliver food to your house. If you're the only physical store but Amazon delivers to your area, is it waived?
I agree that a custom cake could be denied, but not commodities in a store that provides basic services.
As long as Amazon and the delivery services will serve you, then possibly.
So, the first person to deny service wins.
The last person has to provide service.
Again, I believe in the greatest agency that does not cause real harm. And hurt feelings need a really high bar before I consider that harm.
Offense can be considered harm?
Bookworm, it'll never be perfect. There as to be some balance to permit people the anility to live. But I do think we need to move the bar back a bit to permit people more agency to say no.
And which party do you believe is more likely to provide these 'rights'?
Efforts to intimidate people could be considered harm. A concerted effort to drive people to leave a home or community for example.
Neither, Bookworm
You believe they are equally unlikely to do so?
Both parties want to direct people to live like them
As long as the Republican Party remains in the thrall of Christian conservatives who wish to force thier views of behavior on others, the Republicans will never be a party of liberty or agency unless you just want the liberty and agency to live like they want you to.
The Dems suffer the same issue
So, you admit that you side with a party that will never give you what you claim to want from them and why you side with them.
I side with them because I vote family first
But I'd rather a centrist party not beholden to either the fringe left or right