Pretty much your rights end where the rights of another begin.
Meaning that it's fine if two people of the same sex to go ahead and get married....but you cannot force or coerce any other person into participating on any level.
You cannot go into someones private business and use the government to force them to give you services. Just like you have the right to live your life the way you wish? So does that other person.
If a man wants to live his life as a woman? Fine. But he should not be able to violate the rights of women and girls by forcing legislation to regard him as a woman and force other women to accept him into female spaces. Women are being raped and abused. It's a violation of our human rights to redefine womanhood and allow men access to womanhood.
If you are in a partisan mob of violent rioters who have descended on a community for the purpose of violence and destruction.....the people who make up that community have a human and constitutional right to defend it and defend themselves.
Using public schools to groom children with certain political ideologies, teaching them as if its true......should not be allowed. Children have a right to be children. And everyone has a right to hear out every side of an issue and to decide for themselves what they think of it and what they wish to support. Shutting others down, lying about them and silencing them shouldnt be a thing. People are not tools or puppets to manipulate and use to get your way.
So on. You would think this would be common sense.....but it isnt.
See, I knew you would know!
Btw, did you know, just recently, Big Tech is now blocking the word "PLEASE ASS BOX ME!"? They say its racist or some shit lol.
Of course I know. I was never easily convinced of anything that starts picking at very clear boundaries.
People who think of themselves as smart intellectuals who are educated are much more likely to allow and follow manipulative rationalizations of infringing on rights. It can be made to sound really good. But instead of being able to unpack it and look at it critically, they just demonize all opposition.
If you think a baker should be able to "discriminate" you must be a bigot. That's the framework they are taught to think in.
We are saying that Bakers private business is his property and the government shouldnt be able to force him to associate or do labor for anyone or anything he doesnt want.....regardless of the reason. Because those rights and liberties are more important than someones feelings.
It doesnt mean we support "bigotry" and not every objection to same sex marriage is bigotry.
You know theyve pretty much decided that they can compel and coerce a society that caters to just their perspectives that doesnt accommodate diversity. And they say whatever they need to make it sound good
H is a collectivist who thinks vaccines should be forced on people for the sake of a community. So he views bodies as community property and is fine with forced participation and called this liberty. He says liberty doesnt mean you can "do whatever you want".
