- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 4,825
- Location
- Space Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The poster above asked how minorities were harmed by social ostracization. I'm not sure that sentiment is applicable.Shouldn't we bury the past and start fresh?
again, no one is in involuntary servitude. It's extremely hyperbolic and dishonest to pretend they are.
There's that silly hyperbole agin. Servitude? Glenn Beck would be so proud.
That's complete nonsense. No one says anyone has to provide a service or sell a product. There is a legal transaction. The poor fellows get to make money. I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously as long as the exaggerates are this extreme.
really, if i am forced (by government) to do something against my will, ...and i have not committed a crime........is that not involuntary servitude
So the transaction itself isn't servitude if forced to occur? Interesting.
Ozone forces you to Be in business at all. Not only that, but your paid. You claim is as silly as Adrian Petersen comparing himself as a professional football player to being a slave. He was made fun of fir that silliness. So should any making you claim.
ozone forces you to be in business at all. Not only that, but your paid. You claim is as silly as adrian petersen comparing himself as a professional football player to being a slave. He was made fun of fir that silliness. So should any making you claim.
Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount. You can very well be an involuntary servant and be paid for your service.
your going off on a lark!
I am stating a simple principle here, and that is governments have no authority to force....... A citizen into involuntary servitude unless a crime has been committed...........that is what the u.s. Constitution .....states.
It's not forced. You don't have to be in business at all.
Yes, I have already been around that tree. The argument is essentially saying people don't have right to pursue their happiness in the way they see fit, but instead must avoid it if they believe in a certain way.
which no one is doing, at all, in any way.
It is dependent in being voluntary. No one has to be in business. So someone who c hoses to be in business and sets a payment others meet is not in involuntary servitude. Can't you see your own dishonest exaggeration?
really?.....what about the two cases where two different business owners, where sued because both would not serve gay people. One in wa, and one in hi.
The gay people claimed they had a right to be served, and the government of both states say you can disseminate against gay people.
If government forces me to serve them, ...that is involuntary servitude.......and illegal under the constitution.
Oh please. No ones unable to pursuer their happiness. More exaggeration. There should be no real effect at all.
Do you remember the florist not long that was punished for not serving a gay individual? Do you think that business was in place before or after the state law that made her decision unlawful? Before. So what of all those racist businessmen after the 1964 bill passed? Do you think they were in business before the law passed? So tell me, did the law make people involuntary servants even if I was to accept your premise? The answer is yes.
Regardless, I have already dealt with this. If they practice their right to liberty they are forced into servitude.
Nonsense. It is nothing of the kind. It's mere civil fairness. The ones abused here were the people refused services for no valid reason. The community would be just to stop going there altogether.
But, it is not involuntary servitude. Your claim is laughable hyperbole.
So being forced to serve people against someones will is something you would consider a condition of happiness?
What in the hell is civil fairness?
Same with those who drove with insurance before the law requiring it was passed. They either adapt or stop driving. Same here. But it is not involuntary servitude. They have choice. And they are not forced to give any service at all.
Basic fairness. Fairness necessary in a civil society. That which legal remedy exists for unfairness.
So forcing people to buy insurance to lower the rates of others is somehow a justified course of action for the state to take part in? So you don't find anything wrong with being forced to take part in commerce for the benefit of others? Interesting. You don't find that to be servitude?
More like not to harm others. Uninsured people dud in fact harm others. And no, it isn't servitude. Those crocodile tears re getting larger and larger. :lamo:lamo:lamo
Nonsense. It is nothing of the kind. It's mere civil fairness. The ones abused here were the people refused services for no valid reason. The community would be just to stop going there altogether.
But, it is not involuntary servitude. Your claim is laughable hyperbole.
What in the hell does fair mean?
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?