- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why should your civil rights trump my right to freely practice my religion? Why should the government be allowed to deny me my right to freely practice my religion?
good thing this factually is not happening
What dysfunction is my religious belief creating?
yah this failed strawman was tried in court, did you read the ruling, now print is hard to read but by the ruling it seemed the judge almost pissed himself with laughter over that failed strawman
theres NOTHING you described (even with the factual inaccuracies and fantasies) that gives one the right to violate the rights of others
Maybe I'm missing something....what are you talking about?
It doesn't have to be a religious belief. It could be a perfectly secular belief like discriminating against whites. However, as long as you're around, here are some examples of how some religious beliefs create dysfunction:
Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LGBT rights in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Not Only Country With Anti-Gay Laws
Political policies created for the purpose of sheltering religious discrimination do create dysfunction within a society. It allows for the social, economic as well as cultural isolation of groups. They without a doubt have been shown to grow into full fledged persecution efforts. This bill? It basically threatened to put Arizona one step away from prosecuting homosexual acts.
Lol, people create the laws the government operates by - they don't get to turn around and then violate and abuse those laws. What concept of legality do you have a problem with? Actually, what part of "You don't live in a vacuum" do you have trouble with? Here is the best part:
1. The constitution (supreme law of the land) agrees that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
2. Court case after court case have agreed that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
3. Legal scholars have agreed that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
Why is it that you disagree with the concept of law as conceived by the people? Never mind, weren't you the guy who didn't see how using child porn hurt people?
Stop giving me legal drivel that violates property rights. A business is the property of the owner and like any other property owner they have a right to their property.This is not what you think it is. I'm arguing human rights, you're arguing unjust laws designed to give government power over private property. You're argument must assume violation of property rights is just and for that very reason you lose.
As we learned with the Abortion debate, your higher goal doesn't come at the expense of an individual's liberty.
1.) im not sure what you are asking?
is it fitting and proper for the caterer to not service the KKK?
sorry you lost me
2.) sometimes it most certainly has and does
especial in the political world or TV world as far as interviews public speaking
for examples a politician or a police chief or a doctor or producible may be addressing a crowd and say African Americans or waitron
but in real life, me an you, friends at a football game or walking down the street. If you said African american and not black id laugh at you, if you said waitron instead of waiter or waitress id probably ask you "what did you just say? " lol
so yes i agree in some cases its out of control
but in the case of rights its not, it cant be
because the alternative is no rights
rights must apply to us all in general or they are too fragile
even more fragile than the already are and more pron to people violating them, if they are made unequal then what happens when you or me are on the unequal side?
Apparently you missed that little tidily-bit in the Constitution regarding the power to regulate commerce. Don't like it? Amend it.
Your individual liberty does not come at the expense of the greater good.
I never said I didn't have to follow it.
The government creates laws. At least know the basics before posting. Otherwise, we will never get anywhere.
What you linked to are instances where there is a state sanctioned religion. We don't have one of those in the US and as long as we choose individual liberty over state control we most likely will never have one of those.
Your individual liberty does not come at the expense of the greater good.
Oh good! At least you've grown up enough to realize you don't live in a vacuum. Now, if you'd only realize that laws aren't bad simply because you don't like them.
Who makes up the government? The people. The people create laws. I think you don't see when you argue in circles. You don't like the laws because they violate the rights of the people - who purposely create those laws to define the extent of the rights they gave themselves. So what exactly are you arguing against? People defining the extent of their rights? Or you not liking the extent to which the rights have been defined?
We kiss our rights good bye more and more, everyday.
The right to be a bigot only exists in the individual mind. It does not extend beyond that. Sorry....it just doesn't....
I didn't state that succinctly.... The thought was concerning a Black caterer to cook and staff a KKK event... The law might say he must perform regardless...but is it fitting and proper to force the caterer and staff to be subjected to something so repugnant to them?
2.)These types of laws are double edged indeed a conundrum.
Thom Paine
the law doesn't say that though, the law is smart in those regards age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion and sometimes sexual orientation was picked for a reason.
even though the law doesnt say this i go with your scenario just to save time
he doesn't have to open a public access business, he CHOSE to and he new the rules and laws and how they work and had to apply to be a business etc.
He would have to be a complete moron to think he'd never have to interact with anybody of an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion and sometimes sexual orientation he didnt like and then CHOOSE to break the law and illegal discriminate against them and think its ok
he could simply not open a public access business
contract the work out to another business
not illegal discriminant
or lie about the reason
or open a totally provide business like out of ones home or on line etc
they law wouldn't be forcing him it would be his choice
2.) again although your example doesnt apply i understand what you are saying ans this is simply how freedom and rights work theres no other way
Same questions to you then. What did the term regulate mean in 1787? Why isn't business listed in the commerce clause?
1.)If you really believed that then you would be all over those laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity that are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
2.) If you really believed the jive you type you would admit these sexual orientation and gender laws have serious flaws.
3.) They frequently fail to protect the civil liberties of Americans, especially when it comes to property rights and our religious liberty.
4.)And if you really believed in freedom....Americans must be free to live and love how they choose.
5.) Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms.
6.) All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.
Who cares? This isn't 1787 and both the manner in which our society does business and the mores and values of society have changed. We are not bound by 18th century dictionaries or perceptions of commerce. The Constitution has always been, must be, and will continue to be interpreted in the context of modern society and the text's modern applications.
Did you amend the constitution to change it's meaning? No? Good, so it still means what it did in 1787.
as usual 100% wrong lmao holy cow how could you even make up something so absurdYou do realize that your entire argument is saying that if people wish to practice their rights as a business owner they should avoid opening a certain kind of business, right? That is an absolutely terrible argument. The entire point of having a government in the first place is so we can have our rights protected.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?