What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

> At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children.

Insofar as there are tax breaks for marriage rather than having children, there's a long discussion possible about what the public policy rationale for them is, but the best explanation is probably incentive to the social stability of a stabilizing relationship and the reduced risk of dependency on public support programs that comes from a mutually supportive relationship (which, even if it fails, still often comes with legal support obligations.)

These are just as valid with childless, including same-sex, marriage as with any other marriage.

>In this context getting fired for political affiliation.

Was he fired from a position in the federal government?

Private businesses are free to fire whoever they like for almost any reason (cant fire someone for refusing to break the law, etc)

Everything past that is just you feeling hurt that people dont agree with your opinions. Introducing legislation controlling private businesses hiring and firing practices is easily one of the most anti-conservative things i can think of, yet here you are claiming to be conservative and yet complaining that the government is allowing companies too much freedom to decide who can and cannot be fired and for what reason.

>Does being fined by a court after losing a lawsuit count as government reprisal?

this is super vague; in court against the government? I would imagine a fine from the federal government represents some kind of reprisal, but not necessarily related in any way to consitutional rights. Losing a court case isnt 'speech', so im not sure i understand the reasoning behind this question.

>Does getting fired for voting for Obama, or Trump count as having my right infringed?

Only if you are employed by the government.

>What about being active, or critical, of LGBT activities? Can I be fired for that, so long as I'm not arrested?

again, you can be fired for (almost) any reason by any private entity. You could get fired because the manager thought you got a shitty haircut.

Have you never heard of at-will employment?

Thanks for your reply! What you're describing is very close to what Tocqueville describes in Democracy in America - that the US has achieved a balance between three parts of society: political society (the gov't), economic society (business) and civil society (social bonds that tie people together in their communities or the judiciary).

I can appreciate your self-description as "conservative" vs. "Republican", because they're very different. The Republican party has tried to so simplify their message to "lower taxes", "let the market decide", and "small government" in such a way that they're only really representing economic society. That means that they're also ignoring important checks on economic society that Tocqueville noticed were key to avoiding something like the French Revolution. (Tocqueville also speaks at length at the need for a balance between complete equality and complete inequality to avoid unrest).

Republicans have eviscerated taxes on business and created economic imbalances like lower taxes for capital gains, inability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, bailouts to banks "too big to fail", restrictions on aspects of civil society like unions, "trickle-down economics", etc. These once added checks and balances to economic society and helped preserve civil society.

Strong civil society is what lead to a Great America of small towns, family businesses, and general prosperity for hard working people....all of which are in danger today. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of a strong American Civil Society. You simply can't have a company propped up by government welfare and anti-union legislation like Wal-Mart and a culture of successful small businesses at the same time. It's an oxymoron.

I think what conservatives are seeing is that the Republican ideal to simply remove all checks and balances on the free market has been poisoning the strong civil society they're trying to rescussitate. When you're feeling like the government is working against you, it's true. Civil society is getting eviscerated and your ideal "equality of opportunity" is getting b-slapped by the invisible hand of the rich and powerful capitalists.

Even Adam Smith made great points for the necessity to check the invisible hand in the Wealth of Nations. He describes the necessity of gov't sponsored public works projects, of checking monopolies, and of public education to avoid the "torpor of the mind" that economic society would lead us to without any checks to it.

Unfortunately few Republicans clamoring for lower taxes and free market economy know anything about the Wealth of Nations. Their one-dimensional policy opinions are creating more of a problem and hopefully more people will start calling themselves "conservatives" because they're trying to conserve equality of opportunity instead of simply parroting "Lower taxes", "Free market", and "Who is John Galt".

Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children (should we ban marrying a post-menopausal woman?), than about why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage has many other benefits that aren't directly related to bearing children.

>The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy.

a political group is something you choose to be a part of. This is significantly different from, say, skin color.