When wingnuts don't believe in religious freedom -

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/wingnuts_are_liberty_hypocrites_look_at_the_religious_exemptions_they_curiously_oppose/

Judging from conservative reactions, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer installed a fascist tyranny in her state this week by vetoing a bill that permitted businesses to engage in anti-gay discrimination. If they are to be believed, conservatives who favored the bill did so out of a concern for the religious and individual freedom of vendors.

Historically, this has been a common last-ditch defensive posture for political factions that have lost their fight to deny others existential equality, whether on the basis of gender, race, sexuality or otherwise. First, they fight against existential equality outright,

by limiting, for instance, equal access to schools for women, equal access to hotels for blacks, or equal marriage rights for gays. Second, once they’ve lost that battle, they try to defend pockets of discriminatory exclusion on some comical grounds that really it is the bigot whose rights are being trampled.

These arguments are generally disingenuous, but let us assume for a second that conservatives are serious about this.

Let us say that people like Tim Carney, Ben Shapiro and Rich Lowry seriously believed that individuals should be able to exempt themselves from economic laws if they have religious objections to those laws. What kinds of things might that actually entail?

Well, we know for instance that apparently it entails the ability to establish discriminatory businesses. It also entails the ability to establish universities that forbid blacks or interracial couples, as Bob Jones University once did for purportedly biblical reasons.

Since these business entities have religious objections to anti-discrimination laws, they should be exempt from them, conservatives claim.

But if this is true, then one has to wonder: Why can’t there be religious exemptions from other economic laws, for instance property law? If someone has a genuine religious belief that the world belongs to everyone or to God and that private property is contrary to their religion, wouldn’t it be an injustice to impose it upon them?

logical opposition to illogical republican ideology only leaves you where you started no concession no compromise no backing off their point however dull it is.   they seem to make laws that are in the moment they serve the purpose they are trying to achieve at the time, like gerrymandering and voter suppression.

In stating that God has given the earth to all men in common, Locke relies upon Psalm 115:16, which states “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to mankind.” He also is clearly relying on Genesis 1:28, in which God is reported to say “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon read the same biblical passages and came to the same conclusion as Locke, namely that God gave the earth to mankind collectively. Unlike Locke, though, he interprets these passages, along with other considerations, as generating the famous conclusion that “Property is theft!”

After quoting an author who cites these and other biblical passage, Proudhon notes: “God gave the earth to the human race: why then have I received none? He has put all things under my feet, — and I have not where to lay my head!”

Later, Proudhon notes that property owners capture land rents (as Ricardo famously discussed) and claims that this is also improper under his religious understanding of the origin of the earth: “Who is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire!”

this is you, me, them, we, everyone has an opinion but all opinions are not for all people, as history shows us those things usually fall to the rich land owners who decide the fate of those less prosperous, that is not equatable to those things used from scriptures to define property, it describes man and his station defining you and yours, nothing Godly about it though those with the bucks claim that moral prerogative a they call themselves the moral majority.