- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It's a stretch of logic. To say it does.
Nobody has a right to make use of someone else's private property. You are arguing against full private property rights. Period. You cannot slice it any other way. It was nice talking to you, but at this point this back and forth is pointless. :2wave:That's not exactly the argument. The arguement is that history explains it. We saw the damage of such discrimination. The rights violated there supersede the bigots right. And no, your hyperbolic example is not remotely the same.
Do you want to offer any actual argument to back up your statement, or are you going to stick with, "Nuh-uh" as your response?
Once again If a person cannot exclude someone from his property, then he cannot be said to be the exclusive owner.
Nobody has a right to make use of someone else's private property. You are arguing against full private property rights. Period. You cannot slice it any other way. It was nice talking to you, but at this point this back and forth is pointless. :2wave:
Courts disagree.
oh, where is the court ruling you have a right to be served?
I linked one that dealt with. You should read what I link.
Only if you ignore the courts and civil rights. I wouldn't call that bring successful.
The courts ignored the property rights of business owners. I'm not ignoring civil rights here as only the business owner has the right to access and use the property and like it is with anyone else they get to decide who they do commerce with.
Simply not true. There are rules each person in business must follow. This is only one.
Yes, and we are debating the legitimacy of the rule.
Again the court case :
The power of Congress in this field is broad and sweeping; where it keeps within its sphere and violates no express constitutional limitation it has been the rule of this Court, going back almost to the founding days of the Republic, not to interfere. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as here applied, we find to be plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude. We find it in no violation of any express limitations of the Constitution and we therefore declare it valid.
And they're wrong. The commerce clause is only to settle trade disputes between the listed members and property can not be acted on for such a reason.
Simply not true. There are rules each person in business must follow. This is only one.
And they're wrong. The commerce clause is only to settle trade disputes between the listed members and property can not be acted on for such a reason.
you are correct to a point, it is the duty of government to protect people from harm, meaning their rights not be infringed becuase of a crime, or thru a health and safety issue ..like spoiled food, of dangerous equipment, these areas the government has authority to act, when you volatile statutory law on your property.
however statutory law does not override constitutional laws.
you cannot make laws, which tell a property owner how to treat a customer, morality or social, becuase government has no authority in those areas....the government is not a moral ,social decider,.....if it was.. it could tell people how to behave, what to drink ,eat, how to raise children, and if does not have that power.
or constitution is not a religious , social or moral document on the people
Again, the courts ruled the constitution was not violated. They have the final say here.
And yet, those who count disagree with you. Shocking. :coffeepap
lets play a few questions here:
you being a liberal, can a state which have banned gay marriage do it, becuase they use the excuse its immoral, and harmful to the institution of marriage, and justify there ban?...and if no why?
And yet, they're wrong.
Same reason they can't deny service.
For any society to function, there has to be rules of fairness. And overtime, we're developing them.
well explain to me this.
how can liberals.say this: is unconstitutional for a government and its people to ban SSM, because states believe that SSM i will be harmful to the institution of marriage, ..while denying SS couples there rights.
but in the same breath say.......its constitutional for the people and its government, to ban discrimination becuase its is harmful to a person, .....while infringing on the rights of property owners?
Because we're very consistent. Both involve discrimination, and while I don't speak for liberals, the same 14th amendment used by civil rights activists works in both cases, the bottom line here is the lack of support for discrimination.
wrong .......both involved rights
individual people are being denied there right to marry--------> becuase of discrimination laws ......which are on the books of states as constitutional amendments.
individual people are being denied there right to propriety and right to association, -------->becuase of discrimination laws.....which are on the books as statutory laws.
No, and the courts agree with me.
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?