In our system, the people give authority to the government.
And they are not ruling Joe; Just his business.
In our system, the people give authority to the government. This is basic government 101. Government couldn't function without our support. We do this by voting, most often for representatives who represent our interests. Again, the civil rights movement would explain fully how it worked in this case.
And they are not ruling Joe; Just his business.
And where do these people acquire the authority over Joe in the first place? Do they have some sort of divine right that gives them authority over how other people trade on their own property?
Well, if they are just going to arrest the business, that's fine with me. I just don't want them messing with Joe.
we have given over some power to government, we did not give any of our rights over to government.
in you line of thinking, when someone enters the business world, they wave their rights to association and right to property.
i never heard of anyone acquiring a license, that says "on acceptance of this license you agree to wave your rights"
No rights have been violated. Quite the contrary, rights have been protected.
Surely I don't have to give a civics lesson here? His acts effect others, a court case (i linked for you) should actual financial harm to people discriminated against, and that it even effected local economy, effecting outside of Joe's Diner. So, the people voted, congress acted, and the courts ruled. Everything was followed and performed as was required.
who's rights?
you say when a person enters the business world , they have to accept laws...well OK, i accept constitutional law, becuase it is the highest there is, statutory law is below constitutional law.
so if the constitution say a citizen cannot be force to do something against this will, unless a crime has been committed, how can statutory law be invoked over constitutional law in this area?
Yes, people voted and delegated authority.
But from where did they acquire the authority to delegate in the first place. How do some people come by the authority to tell Joe how he must engage in trade on his own property? Are these people possessed of some sort of divine right that enables them to rule their fellow man?
The people are the authority within the confines of our system. As they did not violate the constitution, this law stood. As I said, all of the pillars of our government were involved.
The minority who was denied service. Read your history and a court case or two. :2wave:
And how did these people become the authority over Joe and the trades he makes on his own property? How does one person or group of people acquire authority over another?
so your saying you have a right to service...to be served....do i have you correct?
Like I said, you're framing it all wrong. Your view is terribly skewed. He is not harmed in any way. He voluntarily entered into business, with the rules firmly established.
In the real world, Joe is a worker at Joe's Diner. Joe's Diner has many rules it must follow to be a business at all and even more if it's an OTTP business.I don't care if you want to restrict the actions of a business. (In fact, I have never seen a business act, so I don't see what such restriction accomplish.) However, I object to using force to restrict the actions of people. Joe has the right to freely engage in trade on his own property does he not?
If Joe is running a business then it's on business property. At the very least, Joe's Diner is leasing the property from Joe the Person.I don't care what you do to his business. However, I am very concerned if you initiate violence against Joe himself to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade on his own property.
The business can be fined. The business can declare bankruptcy. Both are different than Joe being fined or declaring bankruptcy.No, I'm making a point.
You want to restrict Joe's ability to freely trade on his own property.
In order to do so you fabricate something called "a business" and say that you are restriction the actions of "the business". There is no such thing. There is only Joe, and you want to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade. All this "business" talk is just a rationalization.
Tell you what, go ahead and put the business in jail.
Joe the Person can do what he wants on Joe the Person's property.Yes, it is his business, i.e. an activity in which he engages, i.e. trading with other people. You are saying that you want to use force to interfere with his ability to freely do so. You want violently interfere with Joe's ability to trade with other people on his own property. I contend that initiating force against one's fellow man is unethical and unjustified. Where you get off assuming authority over people's peaceful behavior on their own property is beyond me. You're not the boss of Joe, or do you contend that you are possessed of some sort of divine right to rule your fellow man.
In fact, that's exactly what happens. Businesses are fined and sometimes banished from the community/shut down for breaking the law.If his diner discriminates against someone, I suggest you arrest and prosecute the diner.
However, I object to your proposal to use state violence to interfere with the peaceful behavior of Joe and to prevent him from freely trading (or refusing to trade) on his own property.
The people themselves give them that power. If the people don't like it they are free to change the law or leave. No one demands that Joe open an OTTP business in that community. However, if Joe wants to open an OTTP business in that community then there are certain laws he must follow. If he doesn't like the laws then he should consider opening a business somewhere else.Ah yes, "the law", which means an edict issued by a group of people.
And you feel that these people are legitimately justified in dictating to their fellow man how he may engage in trade on his own property. And how do these people acquire their authority over Joe to dictate how he may engage in trade on his own property. Do they have some special powers? Some sort of divine right that gives them the authority to issue orders ("laws") to their fellow man?
Joe gave them that authority by entering into his business contract with the community.But how did these people become the authority over Joe, such that they can rule over the way he trades on his own property?
But how did these people become the authority over Joe, such that they can rule over the way he trades on his own property?
Not to discriminated against due to race, gender, or religion.
i did not ask that, i ASKED you, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SERVED?
And I told what I do have a right to. If I come in nude, you don't have to serve me. But eating while back, or female, or Catholic is not grounds to deny me, so on those grounds I have a right not to be discriminated against. This is the issue. So, don't try to move away from it.
so according to you, ...you have a RIGHT to be served, can you tell me where the USSC has given that ruling?...and can you tell me how you have achieved THIS RIGHT over my rights, which forces me to serve you.
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?