Thanks for the link. You should make a separate post for it.

"It is immoral to irrational."
When I'm inclined to think what's the harm in being irrational, I should go to whatstheharm.net.

Let me back up and agree with your observation that people pretty much want to kill or love other people first and then find the justification for their beliefs in religion or ideology or philosophy. We have plenty of gun-toting Objectivists who want to kill looters and moochers. I am not one of them.

It is immoral to irrational. It is not immoral to be factually incorrect.

The laws that should be passed are the ones that adhere to the constitution as ratified in 1788. Where the constitution is concerned, only those opinions that fall within the guidelines of the constitution should be considered. If anyone disagrees with the constitution, the founding Fathers devised a method of changing it. They are called amendments. The good thing is it is difficult to amend the constitution. The bad thing is it is just as difficult to remove a bad law or amendment. Laws should be difficult to initiate. However, when a law is obviously bad, it should be easy to eliminate.

There is no difference. The earlier laws on racial identities were unconstitutional and should never have become law. The present laws on gender identity are also unconstitutional. Government is the problem. They have stomped upon the Constitution until it is no longer readable. The entire government must have been elated at the invention of the Cuisinart. A blender so good that they stuffed the constitution inside and hit the puree button insuring that it would never be readable and, therefore, not necessary. No one in the Gulch is to blame. We're just waiting until this Ponzi scheme falls in upon itself. It kind of falls under a quote in the Bible, (not verbatim)"Go Ye forth from the presence of a man when thou perceiveth, not in him, the lips of knowledge." In layman's terms, "Don't try to argue with an idiot." In this case the congress are the idiots. I really don't think all of congress are idiots. I do think they are mostly stupid. And you can't fix STUPID. The fact that you are in the the Gulch is a testament to your intelligence. I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have on anything. Of course, if it is something I know nothing about, I will query the subject. Please feel free to use my SUV parked somewhere outside the Gulch. Don't forget to fill the tank.

There was nothing but reputation against such thinking in the NT. The OT was bicameral man's thinking and our history...most people do not read the OT, except for muslims cause they are of the same preconscious brain set.
Still, the NT still speaks to the bicameral brain because most had not made the transition into the mind...in fact, much of the world today still hasn't made that transition.

Julian Jaynes gives excellent perspectives upon the bicameral nature of man before consciousness evolved in some.

"what I understand of the Christian religion, the only people in church are sinners."
You are picking up on that I have two views of religion. One is that it's people's "olive tree", the traditions of their grandparents. The other is when people take it literally. I say they're the stories that inform people world view and should be respected, until they start hearing voices saying they should bind and murder their son.

I'm tempted to wonder which kind of religion is Christianity: the magnanimous and humble one you described in your story, or the ones that just want to make people feel uncomfortable out of meanspiritedness. The premise of my question is wrong. Religions are not religions of peace or war. They're a broad set of stories that can mean almost anything. So does that mean religion really isn't anything, can't be defined? I don't know. My understanding of this is unclear.

It sounds like you're saying it is irrational to discriminate based on LGBT issues and that it is not immoral to be irrational/incorrect. I agree with that. Then you say LGBT discrimination is based on the same flawed philosophy that excuses violence. My thought is that is usually true, but it's irrelevant. Mysticism/altruism lead to violence and various other behaviors, but we don't have to respond to all behaviors originating from mysticism/altruism the same way.

Scientists are just people, too. Collectively, they show all the same virtues and failings. I get daily emails from Retraction Watch because I have a special criminology interest in fraud in scientific research. That said, students of Heisenberg and Schroedinger did not and do not blow themselves up in the pizza parlors of their opponents.

Georg Ohm was ridiculed for his "law" and denied university status. But no one tried to kill him.

It was a quip. I did not mean that bars should be above the law. I was only pointing to a common reality about redneck bars.

As far as churches go, I am an outsider, but from what I understand of the Christian religion, the only people in church are sinners. That's why they are in church.

I mentioned the Methodist church I attended. One time, one of the teenage ushers met me and took me to a back pew because churches always fill up from the back first, right? But I said - in a church whisper that everyone could hear - "No, I want to sit down in front with the hypocrites and Pharisees." And the president of the men's club turned around, smiled, and waved me down front to sit with him and his family.

So, why do they discriminate against gays? And a transgendered person is not gay, so that's a whole other issue. It's like an organ transplant. You can't join our church because you had a cow aorta put in.

We are talking past each other, or at least I past you. On what rational basis do we discriminate? Only on the basis of morality. Morality rests on reason and the recognition of reality. So, you and I disagree, but I regard you as moral because you have demonstrated your rational-empiricism. You recognize reality and you use reason. Just being wrong is not being immoral.

The desires of the churches (and apparently some people here) to discriminate on the basis of gender is indeed based on the same flawed philosophy - mysticism and altruism - that excuses their violence.

I read AJ's comment again, and I understand better why you're talking about Christian doctrine.

I see religious people as almost completely separate from religious texts. Religion represents people's "olive tree", the rituals and stories passed down from grandparents. How they're interpreted, though, depends almost entirely on human institutions. Religions have fantastical stories about magic and violent brutal behavior that most people know not to take literally. People who want to commit murder, rape, slavery, and all of humankind's horrors can find support in the religious books. People who want to turn people against one another can argue that other members of the religion aren't following the true way and that other religions are more evil than there. They can rightly point to the sick and twisted stuff from the other religion's text, the stuff that normal people apparently ignore.

I don't see anti-LGBT as being part of Judeo/Christian/Islamic doctrine. I think people who want to pick on LGBT people or to respect them can do it in the name of religion.

"The place where rednecks can kick gays - kick them out or just plain kick them - is called a bar. It is not called a church."
Are you saying bars should be treated differently under the law? Or are you saying mainstream churches more elevated and don't want to reject LGBT people?

"You are very insightful in (b). Yes, that is a logical inference and a historical fact. It was a truth that Ayn Rand had a hard time getting across, the unity of reality in human action."
Thank you, but I was repeating what you said without understanding. I don't see not wanting someone around as the same as assault. I would be loath to see someone open a restaurant or other service with a sign saying "no coloreds allowed". The law makes that illegal and saves me from having to see it. I don't think the law is right thought. Having the law control whether someone discriminates means once 50% of the people agree on not discriminating against a group gov't force backs them and no one can openly discriminate. I'm open to other ideas, but that doesn't sound good. It just seems like it masks the problem.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your taking the time to parse the many details. To get back to the basic issue, you wrote: "If the religion is not sacrificing humans, or forcing others to believe their religion, then the government has no authority to tell them what to do or to control their ideals whether you believe in their religion or not." I take that to mean that as long any group or individual is not violating the rights of others, then the government should leave them alone. I agree 100%.

What do you expect when someone is violating the rights of another? I fail to understand how the present laws on gender identity are different from earlier laws on racial identity. In the previous generation (before I was 20), public restrooms were labeled "Male, Female, Colored." The US military generally segregated people by so-called "race" to the extent that they would not give a "white" soldier a "colored" blood transfusion.

I perceive the common notions here in The Gulch about gender as being similar to ideas about "race" in the 1940s.

I am going to answer each question one at a time.
"Do you believe that a church should be exempt from the building codes, or fire marshal codes?" NO!
"Do you believe that churches should pay taxes?" YES!
"Should a church in a city be allowed to set up a firearms range in their parking lot?" YES, if the law allows it.
"Should a church bus be required to have turn signals and headlights?" YES!
"The question is this: should churches obey the law?"
That is not the question. The question is; does the law obey the constitution? If the law is constitutional then everyone obeys the law. If it is not, then we must replace the Executive branch for not vetoing an unconstitutional bill. We should replace the congress for submitting a bill that is unconstitutional. That means both the Senate and the House.
This government we are dealing with is now the same government with which Dagny had to deal. The prophesy of Atlas Shrugged is here. Argue with the government, they are the real foe! But then, there is no arguing with the government. It's like arguing with an idiot.
"You seem to believe that churches (mosques, synagogues, temples) have some special status that puts them beyond the law."
I do not understand how you arrived at this. Your beef is with the government, not me. You are reading into my comment things that bother you. I forget who said it first:
"What does not pick my pocket nor break my bones should not concern me."
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson. Not sure.
Now, if you disagree with my answer to any of your questions, let me here your facts. Don't assume you know what I am thinking, ask me.
When you assume, you make an
ASS out of U and ME.

Anyone is “welcome” to apply for anything, but the fact remains that governments give churches and selected other groups special privileges that individuals are not eligible for. These freebies provide churches and government-approved “nonprofits” extra resources to spread their religious and political doctrines, without regard to the objective merits of such doctrines.

As you say, groups have the resources to do things “on a grand scale” that most individuals do not. But groups do not have any rights apart from the rights of the individuals comprising such groups, and the size of any such group does not confer any extra rights to its members. Plus, it is dangerous for governments to be in the business of deciding which activities are “good for society” and thus eligible for tax exemptions, and which activities are not. As a conservative, you should be especially sensitive to the risk of allowing governments to “play God” in this respect, considering the recent scandals over IRS targeting of conservative organizations.

Being "outwardly" queer is harmful for society, although most of us can handle ourselves just fine...it does have an impact on the young and the weak, not to mention, the culture, especially when it's encouraged and endorsed. Tell me it doesn't "Tempt" the young, not to mention those so disposed to make the young into their own image. Most will admit that they started on this path with the intrusion of another so disposed.

Character and behavior is not relative to a persons thoughts, wishes or desires nor society...we have some basis for what constitutes these things in general; however half or more of the world still lives in the bicameral brain and the other half lives in the mind and naturally behaves accordingly.
So for the mean time we live with "Man made rules" that punish the many, in favor of a few, because of a few and most definitely to aggrandize the men that make the rules.

Hope you get paid soon...your living the dichotomy of the haves and the have nots...those that have conscience and those that have not.

I also think that in the greater scheme of things, the harm is cumulative and possibly in a quantum way as well...although I see the possibility...It just can't be proven right now...but as you might know...North and South attract for a reason.

I would argue the Objectivism is no less a religion than a the local belief of the white building at the corner of your city.

Mr. Ashinoff, the First Amendment no longer means what the Founding Fathers meant. Remember, per the current thinking of SCOTUS, the majority believe the Constitution is a living document, moving with the culture as it winds through time.

Now the Constitution is simply pushed and pulled without amendment....you simply scream, protest, lobby and your politicians will easily change the Constitution unconstitutionally by the use of case law for a set price.

Good points Mr. Marotta. The law is king (though obviously selectively enforced with some public officials of late).

I find one small hole in your argument, however. When the law makes an exception for a group, then that is the law.

I think your question is more on the grounds of where a particularly desired behavior should be forced. This goes back to who makes the laws and what they are basing those laws on.

For instance, almost any law can be passed using public safety as the key objective since almost anything anyone does poses a risk to themselves and potentially others. One may say "that is ridiculous" to say that my smoking in my house is harming the house 5 doors down, but how do you really know? The gov't and some lobbyists and special interest groups now say "we cannot take that chance." At what point is the gov't required to protect us from ourselves? Isn't our ability to commit suicide the ultimate activity that would require protection? Well, unless the gov't values the individual over the group, that would be the case; however, now the group that screams the loudest and is in line with an overall agenda gets the prize of protection.

So I say to you, how do you know what laws should be passed and which should not?

I would argue that unless you base your decision on a standard which is external to man and immutable, you cannot say certainly this or that....it will simply come as a result of your opinion (and even and opinion that may be highly researched and "rationally objective."

I do not usually agree with you, Carl, but you do offer some insightful questions. Thanks. And I do not necessarily have answers, just other questions.

You raise an interesting issue in the harms caused by government (in)action. It might be that laws against discrimination - race, gender, source of income - should apply only to the government itself. The government cannot favor some citizens over others.

On the other hand, we have some such onerous laws now: here in Texas, everyone has to pay their employees on time except the government. By June 1 I had gone 45 days without a paycheck. Right now, September 11, I have yet to be paid for August 1-31. That would be illegal for a private employer.

OUC: "...whether or not I will do business with someone of poor character or behavior." Well, that is the point of Galt's Strike, is it not? Should you do business with your destroyers? What constitutes good character or good behavior is pretty much up to you in your own life. The problems arise from having a business that is open to the public. See my comments above to CircuitGuy about Digital Equipment., and his cogent reply. (https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...)

I can agree that someone who is drunk or high could be a danger to others, but are you saying that being queer is potentially harmful to others? Do cross-dressers typically pick fights with strangers?

I can see the sign on your bar.
Carl's: Where Everyone Knows What You WIll Do Next.

The place where rednecks can kick gays - kick them out or just plain kick them - is called a bar. It is not called a church.