- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No, it isn't. This s just silly exaggeration on your part.
No I'm not. I believe they must clearly show their rules if they're in conflict with what a reasonable person would assume. I'm pretty sure Stossel would object just as you tried to do earlier.Okay, so it sounds like you're agreeing with Stossel.
no..... its very clear, its only your denial, if you just accept it, i will just move on and not say a word about it more.
I make it a point not to give silly ass exaggeration credence.
well i am sorry for you in your denial about rights, and the constitution.
I'm in denial? What's the law right now?
13th amendment....which is supreme law, over federal, state or local.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Neither of those exist, so you need a law for a condition that does. Your argument is weak if you need to exaggerate.
Been there, did that. When I was born all those were illegal except Satanism - but only because any moron could point to the 1st Amendment and claim it's protection as a religion. Otherwise, yes, that was pretty much the state of the America prior to the 60's and it had been that way for over a century. The pendulum swings, which is where's we're at now - trying to undo the injustice that was allowed to happen for far too many years.since you think government is the moral master, would you approve if they made unlawful
homosexuality
devil worship
derogatory speech
i think you would change your tune very quickly.
involuntary servitude exist if people are forced by governments to serve other people thru coercion.
involuntary servitude is person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion .
involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere
No. They don't have to be in business. They are not forced to be. They only have to follow the rules if they choose to be in business. You have it all twisted and Inaccurately framed. You're exaggerating has clouded your ability to see it correctly.
Been there, did that. When I was born all those were illegal except Satanism - but only because any moron could point to the 1st Amendment and claim it's protection as a religion. Otherwise, yes, that was pretty much the state of the America prior to the 60's and it had been that way for over a century.
No. They don't have to be in business. They are not forced to be. They only have to follow the rules if they choose to be in business. You have it all twisted and Inaccurately framed. You're exaggerating has clouded your ability to see it correctly.
Sorry to burst your bubble but these are not morality issues.yet is the same breath they will say government has a moral authority for.
redistribute wealth
minimum wage
That point of yours has been defeated how many times now?
i have a right to commerce
i have a right to commerce
So do your customers.
Not if other party does not consent.
You really should read the court decision. Just saying . . . :coffeepap
If the owner of the business does not consent to do business with a consumer it matters not if the consumer wants to take part in commerce with that business. It's elementary.
But it does. The courts ruled that it does. They showed serious economic effect on those turned away. So, in a nut shell, you're wrong.
Sorry to burst your bubble but these are not morality issues.
And the other two, discrimination and affirmative action, have more to do with resolving social issues than morality.
So do your customers.
Economic effect has nothing at all to do with the consent picture. If an individual does not consent to do commerce with someone you can not therefore force them into commerce. It is a violation of the rights of the individual.
Unless you can show how this action is a violation of someones rights then you have nothing to stand on but crying about someone practicing their right to liberty.
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?