The Difference between Libertarian and Conservative.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Nero did what he wanted. There was no law but his whim.
But more to the point, it's an almost perfectly poised dilemma. No one should be unjustly discriminated against for his/her/its sexual orientation. But no one should be obligated to do something expressly forbidden by his faith.
I liked TomO's solution. Sell "celebration cakes" with kits you could use to decorate them. Then everyone's rights are preserved.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
However, baking a cake isn't expressly forbidden by the Christian faith, even if for an occasion which is forbidden.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
iirc, the bakers in question had baked cakes for the homos before, and were happy to bake plain cakes for them in the future
I get that, but I understand why someone wouldn't want to take part in such a celebration. I still think TomO's idea is one that balances out everyone's rights.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I think our Constitution is Christian and Paul would have written glowingly about it. It doesn't force anybody to be Christian, and I think he would have gushed about that too. I don't think the Apostles wished that monarchs would force people to convert.
Ours is the government where you abstractly dissect the monarch into parts, three parts, the executive, the lawmaker, and the judge. Then you build institutions up around these three parts, they each act independently of the other two, and within narrow specifications, they are each absolutely powerful, just as the monarch is absolutely powerful all in one man.
Our monarch is our written Constitution. We conservatives want Republican jurists in the courts, because we understand them to be the "referees" or "umpires" that make sure we are all playing by the rules set out in the Constitution. And their absolute power of judicial review means that they judge even the lawmaker so that he is not a law unto himself and his cronies.
In the 1860s Paul would have written the American Church to vote Republican.
Right Divider
Body part
You sure like to speak for Paul. Let me try...
If Paul were here now, he would say "don't be a Roman Catholic".
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Still pondering this one, as there doesn't appear to be any standard, authoritative definition for 'Conservative.'
aCW was right about one thing, conservatives differ from libertarians (not the political party but the political ideology) in matters of Let's Get Blasted Together, xorn, prostitution, and other Onanistic activity involving private parts that is not open to life. The only distinction in fact between libertarians and liberal Democrats in these matters is abortion.
Conservatives conserve something, but one take is that you would need a host ideology before you could conserve it, because otherwise conservative is arbitrary, which is what it seems to me in my limited reading of its progenitor, Edmund Burke. Like if Burke lived in a different time and place, he would promote whatever his culture happened to used-to support, like he did in England in the 1700s.
To promote anything arbitrarily seems pretty anti-libertarian to be sure, but I also know of no conservatives who would agree that they are arbitrary, although sometimes you have to wonder when they say things like 'the good old days', because without some kind of foundation to prove that the good old days were objectively good, they just sound arbitrary.
And if they have a foundation for what makes something objectively good, then this sounds more like what in the polisci literature is called 'liberalsim'. The philosophy of freedom, and the ideology of constitutionalism, rule of law, civilian control of the military, separation of powers, independent judiciary, federalism, human rights.
ofc there are self-identifying conservatives who reject these institutions of liberalism, in favor of whatever laws they can glean or see in the Bible.
aCW was right about one thing, conservatives differ from libertarians (not the political party but the political ideology) in matters of Let's Get Blasted Together, xorn, prostitution, and other Onanistic activity involving private parts that is not open to life. The only distinction in fact between libertarians and liberal Democrats in these matters is abortion.
Conservatives conserve something, but one take is that you would need a host ideology before you could conserve it, because otherwise conservative is arbitrary, which is what it seems to me in my limited reading of its progenitor, Edmund Burke. Like if Burke lived in a different time and place, he would promote whatever his culture happened to used-to support, like he did in England in the 1700s.
To promote anything arbitrarily seems pretty anti-libertarian to be sure, but I also know of no conservatives who would agree that they are arbitrary, although sometimes you have to wonder when they say things like 'the good old days', because without some kind of foundation to prove that the good old days were objectively good, they just sound arbitrary.
And if they have a foundation for what makes something objectively good, then this sounds more like what in the polisci literature is called 'liberalsim'. The philosophy of freedom, and the ideology of constitutionalism, rule of law, civilian control of the military, separation of powers, independent judiciary, federalism, human rights.
ofc there are self-identifying conservatives who reject these institutions of liberalism, in favor of whatever laws they can glean or see in the Bible.