I agree regarding the difference between morals, ethics, and religion, as well as the right of professionals to establish standards of practice, as long as those standards are not imposed by government.

For instance (on the professional standards side), the AAFP vs. the AMA gives two different professional groups covering doctors, each of which has established its own standards of practice. Unfortunately, in most states, the AMA standards are imposed by the government, so doctors who are members of the AAFP are forced to also be members of the AMA if they want to be licensed by the government. This is wrong. Why should we not be allowed to choose the professionals whose standards of practice we agree with, and shun those we don't agree with? In a free market, we could. But, in medicine as in so many other areas, we do not have a free market, and have not for many years. So, we are forced to endure the practices of those who have influence in the State, regardless of our preferences, because that influence has been used to create laws that favor the organization (in this case, the AMA) that has the influence.

In religion, ethics, and morals (areas which may overlap to some extent, but which are entirely different when taken individually), we have members of certain religions who are attempting to impose their religion's morals on the rest of us, regardless of our own personal moral and ethical beliefs and practices, and so we have to fight for the right to practice our own religious, moral, and ethical standards. For instance, my own ethical standard says that no one has the right to initiate force on anyone else, for any reason. This clearly goes against the standards of some of the major religions in America, as well as the moral positions taken by many popular political and social speakers.

mthom is seriously confused when he claims that libertarians use the state to get their way on social issues. Libertarians don't use the state to get their way on anything. Libertarians are interested in eliminating the state's power, on social issues as well as every other issue. For mthom to claim otherwise shows his lack of understanding of libertarianism.

Hmmm…. have I rambled enough yet? I think so.

The thing that puzzles me is you seem to equate anyone having a moral or ethical stance on any subject to be a "tool of the religious right." You do understand the difference between morals, ethics, and religion, do you not?

This is not necessarily the case. If the majority of the customers in the area prefer establishments that discriminate, then there is an incentive to discriminate. (Or alternatively if those with the majority of the money prefer the same.)

Perhaps we can stipulate that in Libertopia people do not have irrational prejudices against others.

Same Sex marriage is pure gender discrimination. Two men regardless if they'll sleep together should have the same rights as a man and a woman. If two men or two women do not have the same rights as a pair consisting of a man and a woman, you're giving superior rights to one group. Which if you read the constitution and the laws of the United States, there is no basis for that.

I believe that laws against smoking marijuana are unjust. But I would still oppose a law that legalized marijuana for whites, while still jailing blacks who use it. Justice for only a few isn't justice at all.