I think in many countries the freedom to engage in gay sex is seen to be a challenge to the democratic will of the people. It should be no surprise that we don't care very much for this!
Those of us who are less democratic and more individualistic recognize how horrible it is when democracy prevents consenting adults from engaging in harmless private activities. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
One is a harmless private activity - the other is a large company gaining an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law. Even though they are are both about freedom I think it's impossible to compare these.
> an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law
It's 100% okay to talk about this, but if we do talk about this, let's also talk about what happens when you get the local politicians to enshrine your particular business model in law and block all your competition from stealing your property - I mean, your customers.
You have this backwards, the incumbent taxi companies are the ones with the unfair advantage enshrined in law (medallions purchased 20 years ago for 1/10 of the price).
You make a convincing argument. We need to strictly regulate gay sex on public roads, and in all other places where it might endanger innocent bystanders. While we're at it, let's tax gay prostitutes who use our tax-funded public bathrooms for commercial purposes.
I'm confused what public roads have to do with anything. Does this mean you oppose regulation of private acts happening off the public roads? For example, if I want to employ people in a racist manner and pay them $3/hour in the privacy of my own bedroom, that's ok?
Or perhaps if the democratic will of the people decides that blacks must use a separate but equal set of public roads, that's also OK?
My only point is that appeals to the "democratic will of the people" are a dishonest justification for a policy. People are perfectly happy to ignore it when it leads to policies they dislike.
Correct. I favor ignoring the democratic will of the people and protecting individual rights. I make no pretenses about this, and I think the tendency of democracies to violate individual rights is one of their deep flaws.
I'm just pointing out that either a) you favor laws against gay marriage since the democratic will of the people supports them (and similarly segregation in the south in 1969) or b) your appeals to the democratic will of the people are dishonest. Which is it?
Are we talking about the "gay marriage" kind of gay marriage, or the "exposing people to the single biggest threat to life and limb, without telling them that you don't have insurance" kind of gay marriage?
Either way, I guess you caught me. I'm a giant hypocrite. I am of course quite angry at you for exposing my terrible secret. Fortunately for me, you are a supporter of individual rights against all laws and public consensus who will gladly support my right to hit you in the face with a piece of rebar.
I simply said "democratic will of the people" is a terrible justification for a law and can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things.
Similarly, on the safety issues which you bring up, I think you are also being hypocritical. If regulating safety is your goal, then either you should a) support banning gay sex, which is extremely unsafe and spreads disease to unwilling participants, or b) it's just another cheap excuse to pass laws against people you simply don't like.
It's not always perfect, but I'm interested to hear your alternative. What if not the will of the people should be he foundation of your government? Brute force? The will of God?
And yes, I do support a ban on gay sex that involves unwilling participants.
Those of us who are less democratic and more individualistic recognize how horrible it is when democracy prevents consenting adults from engaging in harmless private activities. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Also, "democratic will of the people" cannot exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...