Well, they kind of warp it: if the rights of people they don't like are legally enshrined, then the government is interfering in their live.
E.g. if you, as a business owner, can't discriminate against gay people (or any other group that you happen to dislike), then the government is infringing upon your freedom.
It comes from a misreading of negative vs positive rights (which is itself a fraught and dicey concept). The logic is that only negative rights are valid, because they exist irrespective of government, whereas positive rights necessarily involve government intervention. And given that anti-discrimination law falls into the positive rights column, it's both invalid and contrary to the ideal of small government.
A gay person who is not allowed to marry and not allowed to patronize area businesses and not allowed to hold a job is not being treated unjustly so long as he is still technically able to own property, speak his mind, and defend his own life against attackers. That's right-wing libertarianism.
no subject
E.g. if you, as a business owner, can't discriminate against gay people (or any other group that you happen to dislike), then the government is infringing upon your freedom.
It comes from a misreading of negative vs positive rights (which is itself a fraught and dicey concept). The logic is that only negative rights are valid, because they exist irrespective of government, whereas positive rights necessarily involve government intervention. And given that anti-discrimination law falls into the positive rights column, it's both invalid and contrary to the ideal of small government.
A gay person who is not allowed to marry and not allowed to patronize area businesses and not allowed to hold a job is not being treated unjustly so long as he is still technically able to own property, speak his mind, and defend his own life against attackers. That's right-wing libertarianism.