So if I present myself to a public accommodation for service - does that not present a burden upon the owner to serve me as he would any of his customers?
You don't think minorities have a RIGHT to be treated the same by the government as those in the majority? If not then I think you are dead wrong. Sorry.
So how exactly do we know what they are?rights are unwritten law
Some people consider offering hypotheticals as a proper rational discussion. I disagree. Hypotheticals can be useful, but many times they fall way short of substantive discussion of points. Nothing but hypotheticals is a poor excuse for rational discussion of legal principles.
Not in my view. A customer is a customer.
So how exactly do we know what they are?
No you are just repeating a deflection. If they are ot written down they do not exist it is actually that simple. If they are written down, unless they are on the tables given by God to Moses, then they are man made. You have yet to offer any evidence that supports your assertions.already cover in post#176
No you are just repeating a deflection. If they are ot written down they do not exist it is actually that simple. If they are written down, unless they are on the tables given by God to Moses, then they are man made. You have yet to offer any evidence that supports your assertions.
If they are ot written down they do not exist it is actually that simple.
All nice claims but where is the evidence?not a deflection my post went into some detail
you need to understand something, written law is what it says, law on paper.
unwritten law is not written but only recognized by the law.
Splitting hairs on a bald man's head is a bad practice and a waste of time.So the English Constitution doesn't exist?
Millions of Brits wait in bated breath for your answer.
All nice claims but where is the evidence?
Splitting hairs on a bald man's head is a bad practice and a waste of time.
Not helpful at all. I spent a couple of semesters at Cambridge and even though it was quite some time ago I still recall some things. Indeed they have no piece of parchment or a set of rules that was adopted at one time by some legislative body, yet what they do have is very well defined and documented to not use the term written. It is not just pulled from thin air at the whim of the people or courts.well first off, it might be helpful for you to know britain has a constitution, however its an unwritten constitution
If you take it out of context, but if you wanted to honestly participate in the discussion why would you do such a dumb thing?There's no hair-splitting. You said what you said, and it was dumb.
My church showed a film by a group called the Wall-Builders that stated that the intent of the 1st amendment wasn't Freedom of Religion, but Freedom of Conscience. This was in the 2nd last week before the election. They followed that up with a video clip - a plea from Ben Carson for a vote for Republican candidates.
If you take it out of context, but if you wanted to honestly participate in the discussion why would you do such a dumb thing?
Repeating your rant will not add to its validity."Splitting hairs." "Out of context." Any more of the usual excuses you want to throw in? How about "semantics"?
You said something dumb, full stop.
Repeating your rant will not add to its validity.
And serving as customer does not place a burden of the one who does the serving? Apparently you NEVER worked in the restaurant business!!!!
Sure I believe they have the right to be treated equal by the government. This is outlined in the Articles in the Constitution. They are applied equally. The concept of "the government" providing an abstract right such as free speech, keep and bear arms, free religion and expression, is completely different than a supposed right to be served by a person.
A person of color walks into a restaurant. Claims they have a right to be served. The cook quits and walks out. Are they going to get served? NO. No one is available to make the food to fulfill the assumed "right". They have a lawsuit maybe but not a right.
"Civil rights" are not actual rights. They are a set of laws. Your earlier reasoning in the thread is the defining criteria for not being a right. A right can not contain the requirement of being supplied by another person. This would require trampling on one person to provide for the other.
Civil rights laws certainly burden [some] people because they force them to serve someone they would not otherwise serve. They must do something against their will.
I have, and I never saw it as a burden, because I was getting paid for doing a certain job. Asking me to do more than what I had agreed to or was reasonable would have been a burden, but not simply doing my job.And serving as customer does not place a burden of the one who does the serving? Apparently you NEVER worked in the restaurant business!!!!
Nope. A restaurant is in the business of serving food to people who want to eat and can pay for the food. Not a burden. A basic purpose of the business.
Quote Originally Posted by Master PO View Post
there is no right to material goods and services, because they would lay and cost or burden on another person.
I have, and I never saw it as a burden, because I was getting paid for doing a certain job. Asking me to do more than what I had agreed to or was reasonable would have been a burden, but not simply doing my job.
Quote Originally Posted by Master PO View Post
there is no right to material goods and services, because they would lay and cost or burden on another person.
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?