Reading comprehension and less ignorance would help. The topic is bigotry. The bigotry of the doctor is undeniable as are the numerous posts in which posters attempt to excuse or condone the doctor's bigotry.The topic is about a doctor refusing service.
I said they have a right to refuse service for any reason and I meant that, because they do. When you own your own business, you have a right to give custom or not to whom you want. If you disagree with how someone else runs their business, don't go there, open your own, etc.
Laws that violate their rights and extend federal authority beyond its actual enumerated powers do exist, but that's an example of our rights being violated, not indication that the rights do not exist.
If you only want to talk about the current state of law, then rather than discuss any meta-notions about the appropriateness of such law, one would simply need to determine if Michigan has added homosexuals to the list of people you can't refuse service to. I don't know if that's the case or not in Michigan, but I would certainly propose tearing that list up and burning it rather than adding anyone else to it.
Reading comprehension and less ignorance would help. The topic is bigotry.
Rights come from the collective agreeing upon them. That is a simple fact.
Absolutely, positively not. **** "the collective."
You live in a "collective" any time you live in a society, particularly one with agreed upon laws and rules of conduct.
`The topic is about a doctor refusing service. The doctor as a service provider has a right to refuse service. The topic is not you calling nota bene an ignorant apologist, which is what you did.
You live in a "collective" any time you live in a society, particularly one with agreed upon laws and rules of conduct. In our society, the collective has agreed that the most important thing is individual rights, but also recognizes that sometimes, to protect the rights of others, the well being of others, restrictions have to be placed on those rights.
Absolutely, positively not. **** "the collective."
I think the concept practiced here is a hybrid:
-Rights as concepts are inalienable and are not derived from "colllective" agreement
-The conditions those rights can be excersized do come from collective agreement (no right is absolute).
In short, I have an inalienable right to bear arms as a concept. The collective then decides undeer what conditions I can excercisize that right . For example, I can't "bear" a RPG somali, east Ukraine or afghani style. I have an inalienable right of free speech, but the collective says whether I can excercize that right to incite riot or terrorism (rare charges in the USA as free speech as an inalienable concept is given alot of leeway).
The fact that the collective does have a say in under what conditions a right maybe excercized mayb e incosnsitent with hardcore libertarianism , but then perfectly libertarian societies have never existed. I dont think any will exist in the future either.
As RougeNuke pointed out, anytime anybody lives in any kind of society, the "collective" has a legitimate say under what conditions rights can be excersized. This say can be very limited, as it here in the USA regarding freedom of speech, religion and weapons ownership. But.... it still exists, and always will.
Blacks weren't harmed either by using separate lunch counters and drinking fountains either. Is that a fair analogy?**** "society," then. Rights are individual, not given by the collective. We are not ants, we are human beings.
The provision of services in exchange for goods or other services should always be voluntary. You are not harmed if someone does not provide service, even if you do not like their reason for refusing to do so.
In this case, no one was even refused anything.
Blacks weren't harmed either by using separate lunch counters and drinking fountains either. Is that a fair analogy?
To some extent, yes.
But you also need to account for Jim Crow laws.
Mandating that a business segregate or discriminate is the same evil as forbidding it from doing so.
Our rights come from the fact that we have a Constitution, that a bigger percent of the "collective" has agreed upon, which then recognizes rights. If the larger percent of the collective tomorrow decided that they wanted to ban all firearms, they could by passing an Amendment to the US Constitution taking away the right to own firearms, essentially repealing the 2nd Amendment. Likely, even if this were done by the supermajority of the population, there would still be people that feel that this is wrong. That may be, but you still couldn't say that we have a right to own firearms in a legal sense if that right is explicitly changed by the supermajority of the collective.
And that is where this from. There is not really any rights that are not restricted or absolute or even inalienable. They are all based on what we agree upon.
What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.If I'd wanted to compare an isolated incident to Jim Crow laws, I'd have done so. What I said was the standard - they got service, BFD - is illegitimate. And then I used some examples - A restaurant with a blacks only section, etc. If "they got service" was an appropriate standard, we could do away with much of the CRA.
How about a fat guy and a woman with red hair? Or two people who happen to be very tall? Or an Irishman and his Norweigian beau? How many "protected classes" do you want to create? Race has special significance in this country, which is why you all are constantly trying to piggyback on it and can't seem to argue in favor of gays without bringing up blacks.Try this one. Is there any meaningful difference between a mixed couple being told that the doctor that had already agreed to take their child as a patient prayed on it and found that caring for a child with mixed race parents violated his/her religious beliefs? The same situation, only difference is that instead of the parents choosing to be with someone of a gender that some in society do not approve of, the parents choose to be with someone of a race that some in society do not approve of.
Just out of curiosity, how many instances does it take in your opinion to make it an issue and why?What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.
And yes, had the discrimination that occurred in the south amounted to a tiny handful of black couples having to go to a different florist, a different bakery, or a different pediatrician, the CRA would never have happened.
What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.
And yes, had the discrimination that occurred in the south amounted to a tiny handful of black couples having to go to a different florist, a different bakery, or a different pediatrician, the CRA would never have happened.
How about a fat guy and a woman with red hair? Or two people who happen to be very tall? Or an Irishman and his Norweigian beau? How many "protected classes" do you want to create?
Race has special significance in this country, which is why you all are constantly trying to piggyback on it and can't seem to argue in favor of gays without bringing up blacks.
I agree and disagree. For example, SCOTUS could over rule an attempt by a hypermajority to delete the second or first amendments as being "unconstitutional" (attempt is an effort to void inalienable rights)- even if the attempt was done according to procedures defined in the Constitution.
Though the "collective" could then just appoint new justices and then make another deletion effort , I think it is fair to say that some rights in the US are inalienable on a day to day, generation by generation basis. Though as you pointed out, they are still subject to agreement by the "collective" in the end. They are subject, however, in only a very distant sense.
How about a fat guy and a woman with red hair? Or two people who happen to be very tall? Or an Irishman and his Norweigian beau? How many "protected classes" do you want to create? Race has special significance in this country, which is why you all are constantly trying to piggyback on it and can't seem to argue in favor of gays without bringing up blacks.
What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.
And yes, had the discrimination that occurred in the south amounted to a tiny handful of black couples having to go to a different florist, a different bakery, or a different pediatrician, the CRA would never have happened.
No they couldn't. If an Amendment is in the Constitution, SCOTUS has to abide by that Amendment, even if it takes away a right guaranteed in another earlier Amemdment.
Do you have a source? I dont think SCOTUS is under any obligation to accept any particular new amendment to the constitution. Rather, they can decide whether the amendment is in and of itself, constitutional.
Yes, there are countless people of every walk of life who in a professional situation treat others with dignity, respect and professionalism. Then there are bigots and other ignorant apologists for them who do not. Quite obvious who is on which side.
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?