Johnson argues against freedom of religion and private property in gay wedding cake scuffle. Petersen stands up for religious freedom and private property rights.
Friends,
Last weekend’s debate between Governor Johnson and myself showed a clear distinction between us over the issue of private property rights.
Johnson argued that the government has a responsibility to enforce anti-discrimination laws, so that bakers would in essence be forced to provide a service in contradiction to their religious convictions. The scuffle over private property is near the end of the video. Watch the Oregon LP Debate, Johnson vs Petersen.
So which person do you think is best to represent the libertarian message to the American people?
Friends, I cannot do this without your support. We’re up against candidates that have no qualms about spending borrowed money that they never intend to repay. Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Contribute to my campaign so we can show Americans what Libertarianism really stands for.
Don’t forget to check out our events schedule for a full list of campaign stops.
Keep up the hard work! You all are true warriors for liberty.
Your friend in liberty,
Question for Mr. Petersen:
In your campaign against the Libertarian Party’s non-aggression principle, your campaign has argued that you choose to “enforce the law” rather than defending libertarian principles: ” the President must enforce the law, which
is often not in accordance with the NAP.”
But here you excoriate Gary Johnson for saying “that the government has a responsibility to enforce anti-discrimination laws” on behalf of gays, and that you would not because “Austin Petersen stands for “stands up for religious freedom and private property rights.”
I would like to know whether, as President, you would enforce the non-discrimination titles of the Civil Rights Act. Judging by the above two statements, your answer could be either yes or no. So I’d like to ask you point-blank:
As President, would you enforce the non-discrimination titles of the Civil Rights Act? Yes or no?
Johnson probably doesn’t know what’s going on here: he probably doesn’t know that at least one baker’s been fined by a state government for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. I have to wonder who, if anyone, is advising him; like the burqa ban, it sounds as if he’s just winging it. If he gets the nomination and the media attention that could result this time (and I’m still hoping both will happen), he can’t simply say stuff like this one day and have to walk it back the next.
He needs “sound-bites”: well-thought-out answers to questions like this and the obvious follow-up (“Does the baker also have the right to refuse to serve a black customer?”)
As for Petersen: saying the bakery is ‘private property’ just doesn’t cut it. You also need to make it clear that it’s wrong to forcibly take the baker’s property (ie, aggress), and as I understand it that’s a principle he’s explicitly rejected.
So, Johnson is not only against freedom of religion, but apparently, freedom of association as well. And of course, he has yet to abandon his support for the “Fair” Tax or “humanitarian” warfare. And I haven’t even mentioned the campaign debt or his total lack of charisma. And this guy is probably going to represent the LP … again. What a joke.
“Jed Ziggler
March 30, 2016 at 00:16
I don’t have exact quotes, Johnson said bakers should have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, Petersen brought up religious liberty. I’d watch the whole video again for the quotes, but frankly it’s bedtime.”
I do not agree with Johnson at all here. The only argument I could see for forcing bakers to bake cakes for gays would be if it were a tax payer financed bakery, say some kind of government owned and operated facility (like a State University), or maybe even a corporation which is heavily subsidized via taxes like Walmart (which is actually part owned by government (check out government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) for more details)). If it is a privately owned bake shop, they should have the right to decide for whom it is they bake cakes.
Now my personal opinion is that it is a foolish business move for bakeries to turn down gay customers, and it is not something that I’d do if I owned a bakery, and I think that it is an asshole thing to do, but people should have to associate with, or not associate with, whomever they wish. That is called freedom of association.
I don’t have exact quotes, Johnson said bakers should have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, Petersen brought up religious liberty. I’d watch the whole video again for the quotes, but frankly it’s bedtime.
Jed,
Do you know what they each said? Facebook swallowed the post before I could read it.
George
I plan to vote for Darryl Perry at the convention, with Gary Johnson as my second choice. That said, on this issue, Petersen is right and Gov. Johnson is wrong.
Someplace on FaceBook, Mr Petersen reports on the Stossel debate, which has been taped, that he and Gary Johnson had a disagreement over gun rights.
I would say where, but FaceBook html coding is unstable, so if you try to move up or down the screen all sorts of strange things happen, and I could not recover the message.
However, the intended market thinks Facebook is just great.
And I support Perry BTW and am interested in hearing more from McAfee.
==Petersen has to be the most destructive thing for the LP in years…===
Yep. And sets back declaring solid libertarian principles because they will be tainted with the obnoxiousness of the presentation.
Petersen has to be the most destructive thing for the LP in years…
Wow, I am not supporting Austin Peterson for the nomination, but he just pointed out another flaw with Gary Johnson here (who i am also not supporting for the nomination).
So Johnson thinks that private bakery owners should be forced to bake cakes for gays. Wow.