[ SECRET POST #4049 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4049 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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.