I hate the word “libertarian”. Not because I have anything against libertarians. Many libertarians are smart people with a lot of good ideas (and other ideas that I strongly disagree with). I like the fact that libertarians defy the two-party system and strive to transcend the tired, oversimplified, black-and-white politics of liberal vs. conservative. It’s not libertarians as a whole that piss me off.
What pisses me off is that any jackass can call him or herself a libertarian. This means that just as “socialism” has become an utterly meaningless term because of how people (including too many libertarians) apply it to others, so has “libertarian” as a label one applies to oneself. You might as well call yourself “smegmatarian” for all the word “libertarian” tells me about you. (Let’s just hope “smegmatarian” doesn’t work like “vegetarian”. Ew.)
Many so-called libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from your standard run-of-the-mill god-humper religious rightists. They stand for all the same things as the religious right, but because they worship the free market and think millionaires should be allowed to wipe their asses with starving children (we all know they’d do that if they got the chance), they call themselves libertarian.
Such is the case with Bob Livingston of personalliberty.com. And he really, really wants you to know just what a libertarian he is.
For someone who loves personal liberty so much, you’d think maybe this guy would support the idea of people being free to practice harmless personal relationship choices without facing discrimination. But this brings us to a problem I do have with libertarians in general: They usually understand personal liberty entirely in economic/commercial terms, and always purely from the supply-side. Any other form of personal freedom or rights just doesn’t register with them.
This is very much the case with Mr. Livingston, who just can’t comprehend why anyone might support gay marriage.
Gay Marriage Trumps 1st Amendment
December 10, 2013 by Bob Livingston
No, it doesn’t. But that ain’t gonna stop you from pulling the dumbest fucking arguments in the galaxy from your liberty-hole, is it?
When government creates special rights for one group, it inevitably does so at the expense of the natural rights of the majority.
You sure you included enough dog-whistle terms in there? Maybe you should’ve found a way to cram in “job creators”, “gay agenda” and “urban thug”, just to be sure you’ve sufficiently whipped your Pavlovian conservative readership into an irrational frenzy.
Such is the case with abortion, where the courts created out of whole cloth a “right” for the mother at the expense of the unborn child’s right to life.
Fetuses are the majority now? When the fuck did that happen? Perhaps more importantly, HOW the fuck did that happen? Someone out there must have a serious case of clown-car vagina to make that work.
Or do you just not know what the phrase “such is the case” means? Well, you see how in your previous sentence you brought up the rights of the majority? Yes, I know how hard it is for god-humpers to remember the words they blurted out just seconds before, but really try this time. You see, when you end one sentence with “rights of the majority”, and then begin the next with “such is the case”, then what follows SHOULD BE A FUCKING CASE OF IT, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCK.
But none of this matters, because this claim about abortion is just god damn stupid. A fetus in the first two trimesters doesn’t have higher brain functions (I’ll avoid the obvious joke). It’s not thinking or feeling or experiencing or doing any of the things a person does. It doesn’t have any thoughts, so it doesn’t have rights any more than a rock or a tree or a Juggalo does. The woman carrying the fetus, however, does have thoughts and feelings and experiences, so she has rights. Once the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive on its own, this relationship changes. But before that happens, she could play fucking tennis with the fetus for all I care.
And such is the case with gay marriage and a recent judge’s ruling in Colorado that will require the owner of a bakery to serve homosexual couples over his religious objections.
Good galluping god gravy, man. Just stop using the phrase “such is the case”. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. You’re in the minority, Bob.
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when he learned it was to celebrate their “gay” marriage. Colorado doesn’t recognize gay marriages, but the men had “married” in Massachusetts.
If you’re gonna use the smug conservative scare quotes, at least use them consistently. To punish you, I’m going to skip ahead to something you say just a few sentences later in your op-ed:
Note that there was no evidence in any of the cases that the businesses refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual preferences.
Remember that thing I said about conservatives being verbal goldfish, immediately forgetting what they said just a few seconds after they say it? Well, Livingston’s brain is hard at work flushing his own statements down his cerebral toilet with every word he types. One second, it’s “they refused to cater when they heard it was a gay marriage,” the next it’s, “Discrimination? What discrimination? I never said anything about discrimination.” *Flush!*
Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney Nicolle Martin said the judge’s order puts Phillips in the impossible position of going against his Christian faith.
“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”
For example, he refuses to make cakes for divorced people getting remarried, because the Bible forbids that (in its many cake-related verses). What’s that? He doesn’t? He only applies this supposedly deeply-held belief to the gays?
What an asshole.
In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme court ruled in August that a Christian couple could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Gay marriages are not legal in New Mexico.
Let’s do that goldfish thing again. A few sentences after the above, we get this…
A common refrain from supporters of gay marriage legalization is that laws allowing gays to marry won’t affect anyone outside the couple. Clearly, this not the case.
*Flush!* As your New Mexico quote clearly indicates, this has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marriage. Discrimination laws are a completely different thing. Your ball-fuckingly stupid argument contains its own refutation. The stuff you’re describing will happen whether gay marriage is legal or illegal, as you yourself clearly said.
So your argument against gay marriage isn’t even an argument against gay marriage. But your argument against discrimination laws is just as stupid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability to discriminate against others. You can’t just say, “God hates Jews” and then refuse to let Jews in your restaurant. That’s not how it works. The first amendment does not allow you to break the law.
But none of that matters to the freedom-loving libertarian, because he just simply can’t comprehend any kind of freedom other than businesses and corporations being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Discriminate against already oppressed minorities? Sure. Rape the environment? Yeah, why not. Destroy the economy by giving sub-prime mortgages to people who never had a chance of paying them off? That’s poor people’s fault for not understanding the complexities of finance. Why couldn’t they just go to Yale like me?
There’s more to freedom that just buying and selling. Hell, there’s more to LIFE than just buying and selling. And something that makes buying and selling marginally more inconvenient isn’t the end of the world. So ease off, libertarians. Shallow, paranoid, and tunnel-visioned is no way to go through life.