Originally Posted by tonton
Exactly whose individual freedom was taken away by allowing a same sex couple to adopt a child? Exactly whose freedom is taken away when you allow a man to visit his dying husband in the hospital? You're criticizing BR for wanting the government to impose his morals on people by allowing these things to happen?
I'm arguing that BR is wanting the government to impose his morality on other by forcing those who are processing adoptions and running hospitals to do what BR wants them to do.
A hospital is private entity. They should have the right to determine whatever conduct they want on their property.
An adoption agency is a private entity and should be allowed to determine the rules of engagement with them.
Now I don't think the government should do anything to prevent hospitals from granting visitation privileges to whoever they want, nor prevent adoption agencies from adopting children to whomever they want like the Jim Crow laws once did by institutionalizing discrimination by government force. But BR wants to force these kinds of organizations to do what he wants. What he thinks should be done.
I'm going to argue that there is no "right" to adopt a child. There is no "right" to adopt a child from any specific adoption agency. There is no "right" to step onto anyone's private property without their permission to visit anyone.
All that said, it is highly doubtful that many if any hospitals would disallow such visitations. Some adoption agencies may not chose to deal with same sex couples while others may. There's nothing wrong with that. Adopting a child is not a "right."
Originally Posted by tonton
Now, were any individual freedoms taken away by the new law that reversed the freedom that allowed these adoptions and hospital visits?
What law are you speaking of? I cannot comment without knowing exactly what you're referring to.
Keep in mind that no one ever in history is being forced to act against their moral beliefs by gay marriage being made legal. If your moral belief is that gay marriage is wrong you 100% have the right to act on your moral beliefs.
OK. So, are you saying that anyone who say owns a hotel, hospital, apartment building, restaurant, etc. would be free to deny service to a same sex couple or would they be compelled under the law to provide service even if they felt same-sex marriage was morally wrong and did not want to serve folks in that situation?
Or is is it that what you really want is to be able to take away other people's freedom to make their own decision on their own moral beliefs, in the guise of your 'freedom' to discriminate against those people?
Absolutely not! I do not want to take away anyone's freedom to make their own decisions and take their own actions based on their own moral beliefs. However, where you cross the line is in failing to realize that the option to discriminate is a right. If I don't like people with red hair, I should be free to not associate with them, hire them, rent my hotel to them. That might not make be a very nice or good (or successful) person. But it should be within my rights to do. What you and BR (et al) wish to do is to take that right away from some people and compel them to act against their own beliefs and values by substituting your beliefs and values by force.
That is the whole point of the the government recognizing these things...to force other to act in accordance with this recognition.
There's absolutely nothing stopping me (or other free people) from recognizing (or not) these unions and acting accordingly. A same sex couple can tell me they are married and I can chose to recognize and acknowledge this or not. But what you and BR want is for me to be compelled, in certain situations, to acknowledge and accept it without discrimination and act accordingly.
P.S. I'm not even saying your beliefs and values are wrong. I personally think it is wrong (and stupid frankly) to discriminate against people because of their race or gender or hair color or even sexual preferences. But we're talking here about forcing these values onto other people. In fact I think a society and culture that widely discriminates based on a lot of these things would be worse than a society that does not, however, I'd argue that a society that forces people to conform in these ways is worse still...and it unlikely to solve the underlying problems anyway.
P.P.S. I'll grant you that this is not a popular position to take, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong either.
Edited by MJ1970 - 4/26/12 at 7:01am