Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?[W:349

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Removable Mind said:

Pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control pills because of his or her religious beliefs - in my opinion - should also have to held to the same ruling. Real Estate agents who only want to sell homes to whites...not good. The list goes on.

Back to photography...

The gay couple wasn't asking the photographer to photograph the Honeymoon Consummation Event...so what's the big deal?

Click to expand...

Not a big deal for some, but for others it seems to have implications to their religious life. There is a clear conflict here. For example if one is uncomfortable going to an event that celebrates a behavior that one believes is sinful due to their religious belief. And it can be objectively shown that their religious text may be interpreted to disallow certain associations. Why should they be forced to go?

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

sangha said:

When the local business serves people from all states

Businesses open to the public are "public accommodations" and are not allowed to refuse service to people who are members of "protected classes"

Click to expand...

That is a sufficiently broad view of the commerce clause to encompass all transactions. That was not what it was intended to be, can you agree?

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

johndylan1 said:

That is a sufficiently broad view of the commerce clause to encompass all transactions. That was not what it was intended to be, can you agree?

Click to expand...

No, I can't

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

johndylan1 said:

That is a sufficiently broad view of the commerce clause to encompass all transactions. That was not what it was intended to be, can you agree?

Click to expand...

all commerce was taken over by the federal government in 1942 becuase a man grew wheat to feed to his own cattle...and the government didn't like it....

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

johndylan1 said:

I'm not 100% sure but I think it was reported that they would be subject to a fine ($7000.00) and could be ordered to pay any court costs associated with the case. This could be wrong, but if I get time I'll see if I can find out for sure.

Click to expand...

thanks

if thats the case then im even more behind this than i originally thought, i do admit if the sentence was like you will be escorted by police and made to shoot the weeding or 90 days in jail then id feel it was extreme but a fine for discrimination is pretty fair IMO.

basically you have new mexico law

28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.

It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
Section 28-1-7 - Unlawful discriminatory practice. - New Mexico Statutes

Click to expand...

says it pretty clear and I mean when you have the state law, state constitution, human rights, legal rights, the 14th, case precedence, and all the precedence established when making/defending the law and those constitutions it makes it kind of tough to argue.

in this case i think they get the order right, if you cant participate in society in a civil fashion its pretty dumb to run a public business if gays, women, men, blacks etc are going to bother you

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

johndylan1 said:

Not a big deal for some, but for others it seems to have implications to their religious life. There is a clear conflict here. For example if one is uncomfortable going to an event that celebrates a behavior that one believes is sinful due to their religious belief. And it can be objectively shown that their religious text may be interpreted to disallow certain associations. Why should they be forced to go?

Click to expand...

In the case of people who work in professions, which they clearly know going into that profession, that he or she will frequently be confronted with providing goods or services to those who don't believe as they do...then I suggest they selected the wrong profession. Or figure out how to provide a service or good to a select client that doesn't impose a conflict.

I'd say that marriage events between same sex individuals...isn't the same as same sex porno shoots. And for people who believe same sex marriage is a sin, I suggest that they live in a very small world. I assure you that those type persons are exposed to many sins every single day that would violate their personal beliefs, but somehow manage to get through life without being co-opted into somebody elses sinful life style.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Removable Mind said:

In the case of people who work in professions, which they clearly know going into that profession, that he or she will frequently be confronted with providing goods or services to those who don't believe as they do...then I suggest they selected the wrong profession. Or figure out how to provide a service or good to a select client that doesn't impose a conflict.

I'd say that marriage events between same sex individuals...isn't the same as same sex porno shoots. And for people who believe same sex marriage is a sin, I suggest that they live in a very small world. I assure you that those type persons are exposed to many sins every single day that would violate their personal beliefs, but somehow manage to get through life without being co-opted into somebody elses sinful life style.

Click to expand...

thats one of the things that bothers me too
dont know about in this case BUT many of these people pick and choose, its pure bigotry.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

thanks

if thats the case then im even more behind this than i originally thought, i do admit if the sentence was like you will be escorted by police and made to shoot the weeding or 90 days in jail then id feel it was extreme but a fine for discrimination is pretty fair IMO.

basically you have new mexico law


says it pretty clear and I mean when you have the state law, state constitution, human rights, legal rights, the 14th, case precedence, and all the precedence established when making/defending the law and those constitutions it makes it kind of tough to argue.

in this case i think they get the order right, if you cant participate in society in a civil fashion its pretty dumb to run a public business if gays, women, men, blacks etc are going to bother you

Click to expand...

Ok now you have arrived at my starting point to this conversation. State law clearly sides with the Gay couple, But dismisses the photographers 1st amendment claim, citing the state law is upheld based on the 14th amendment equal protection. My claim hasn't been that discrimination is acceptable, it has been that the discrimination is cutting both ways. Therefore is there a primacy to rights? Should equal protection always trump 1st amendment protections? Should it be case by case? If it is case by case, are there truly any rights at all, or are we left with what the masters in robes decide from day to day (this didn't work out too well in the past). If there is primacy of 14th over the 1st, what implications could this have to the political system outside of direct discrimination issues?

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

johndylan1 said:

1.) Ok now you have arrived at my starting point to this conversation. State law clearly sides with the Gay couple, But dismisses the photographers 1st amendment claim, citing the state law is upheld based on the 14th amendment equal protection.
2.)My claim hasn't been that discrimination is acceptable, it has been that the discrimination is cutting both ways. Therefore is there a primacy to rights?
3.) Should equal protection always trump 1st amendment protections? Should it be case by case? If it is case by case, are there truly any rights at all, or are we left with what the masters in robes decide from day to day (this didn't work out too well in the past). If there is primacy of 14th over the 1st, what implications could this have to the political system outside of direct discrimination issues?

Click to expand...

1.) i dont think they are "dismissed" at all. Certain rights cant be practiced if they infringe on others its that simple really and since they were dumb enough to admit the violation of the law they lost (for now)
its up held by state law, state constitution, the 14 and all the precedence supporting those things

2.) its not though, its stupid to run a public business if one cant be civil and play by public rules like we all have too

3.) i cant say that, id say its circumstantial like just about everything in life is. As for the rest thats how it works, it would be extremely silly to make it concrete.

things have to be "in general" circumstantial and religion is going to lose most cases that involve BUSINESS and PUBLIC because that has nothing to do with the religious realm nor should it.

for example, look at the opposite, if we dont make it circumstantial and we make it concrete and say we give religion top ranking then what? what happens as St Marys hospital when gays comes in the emergency room and they refuse to treat them? or when i want to visit my wife but since we were married under a different religion they dont let me? etc etc

Religious rights end pretty quickly once outside the religious realm and once you are infringing on others, it has to remains circumstantial, there are business/public rules we ALL play by

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Removable Mind said:

In the case of people who work in professions, which they clearly know going into that profession, that he or she will frequently be confronted with providing goods or services to those who don't believe as they do...then I suggest they selected the wrong profession. Or figure out how to provide a service or good to a select client that doesn't impose a conflict.

I'd say that marriage events between same sex individuals...isn't the same as same sex porno shoots. And for people who believe same sex marriage is a sin, I suggest that they live in a very small world. I assure you that those type persons are exposed to many sins every single day that would violate their personal beliefs, but somehow manage to get through life without being co-opted into somebody elses sinful life style.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that because they have a religious viewpoint they have lost their right to pursue happiness (earn a living at their chosen profession). Consider that they may indeed live in a small world, but don't their rights count at all? Once upon a time blacks were forced to the back of the bus because it was the societal norm, those who opposed these practices base on their view of equal rights were ignored and thought to live in a small world. Never the less they did not let go of their rights and eventually won the argument. I don't believe this is that much different, religious freedom is under attack by our society. This doesn't mean that I think discrimination is appropriate. I do think there is a conflict if rights, therefore to not associate, in this case, provides the maximum liberty for both sides.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

johndylan1 said:

So you are saying that because they have a religious viewpoint they have lost their right to pursue happiness (earn a living at their chosen profession). Consider that they may indeed live in a small world, but don't their rights count at all? Once upon a time blacks were forced to the back of the bus because it was the societal norm, those who opposed these practices base on their view of equal rights were ignored and thought to live in a small world. Never the less they did not let go of their rights and eventually won the argument. I don't believe this is that much different, religious freedom is under attack by our society. This doesn't mean that I think discrimination is appropriate. I do think there is a conflict if rights, therefore to not associate, in this case, provides the maximum liberty for both sides.

Click to expand...

well IMO the photographers already had that choice.

1.) either not run a public business at all or 2.) dont photograph ANY weddings

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

well IMO the photographers already had that choice.

1.) either not run a public business at all or 2.) dont photograph ANY weddings

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Henrin said:

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Click to expand...

yep funny how simple and common sense based it is, instead they choose to break the law and admit it

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

yep funny how simple and common sense based it is, instead they choose to break the law and admit it

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo

I love how you think violating the liberty of people is perfectly ok because they could just decide to not practice another liberty that leads to it.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Henrin said:

:lamo:lamo:lamo

I love how you think violating the liberty of people is perfectly ok because they could just decide to not practice another liberty that leads to it.

Click to expand...

factually discriminating and breaking the law is not a liberty that doesnt come with consequences

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

factually discriminating and breaking the law is not a liberty that doesnt come with consequences

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Is that really what you believe? Someone around here doesn't understand the words they use.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Henrin said:

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Is that really what you believe? Someone around here doesn't understand the words they use.

Click to expand...

my beliefs play not role here thats factually what happened, if you disagree with those facts please provide FACTS that prove otherwise, id live to read it

but i bet the farm you are going to either dodge, try a failed insult of give me your typical P.O.T. and zero facts that change what was already pointed out

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

my beliefs play not role here thats factually what happened, if you disagree with those facts please provide FACTS that prove otherwise, id live to read it

Click to expand...

Do you understand the premise you used for liberty? I doubt you actually do.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Henrin said:

Do you understand the premise you used for liberty? I doubt you actually do.

Click to expand...

translation: you have nave no facts so now you are attempting to deflect. FAIL
Let me know when you have some

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

translation: you have nave no facts so now you are attempting to deflect. FAIL
Let me know when you have some

Click to expand...

I'm not deflecting at all. You just don't understand what your argument actually implies.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

well IMO the photographers already had that choice.

1.) either not run a public business at all or 2.) dont photograph ANY weddings

Click to expand...

The logical conclusion of this is that someone who has moral standards, and is unwilling to take an active part in an immoral activity,, forfeits the right to engage in any business where he might be asked to participate in such an immoral activity. This leaves only the immoral allowed to engage in that business. I think this is very obviously wrong. Unless you're talking about a business which is inherently immoral, such as gambling or prostitution or pornography or whatever, a person's moral values ought never be an obstacle to being allowed to practice that business.

Certainly, one should not be prohibited from being a wedding photographer because one's moral principles make one unwilling to participate in a sick mockery of a wedding.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Henrin said:

I'm not deflecting at all. You just don't understand what your argument actually implies.

Click to expand...

hey look another deflection and ZERO facts to go against what was already pointed out
i presented no argument i pointed out what factually happened, thats your issue, you make believe your opinion is reality and just make stuff up, it all adds up to another fail

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

1.) i dont think they are "dismissed" at all. Certain rights cant be practiced if they infringe on others its that simple really and since they were dumb enough to admit the violation of the law they lost (for now)
its up held by state law, state constitution, the 14 and all the precedence supporting those things

2.) its not though, its stupid to run a public business if one cant be civil and play by public rules like we all have too

3.) i cant say that, id say its circumstantial like just about everything in life is. As for the rest thats how it works, it would be extremely silly to make it concrete.

things have to be "in general" circumstantial and religion is going to lose most cases that involve BUSINESS and PUBLIC because that has nothing to do with the religious realm nor should it.

for example, look at the opposite, if we dont make it circumstantial and we make it concrete and say we give religion top ranking then what? what happens as St Marys hospital when gays comes in the emergency room and they refuse to treat them? or when i want to visit my wife but since we were married under a different religion they dont let me? etc etc

Religious rights end pretty quickly once outside the religious realm and once you are infringing on others, it has to remains circumstantial, there are business/public rules we ALL play by

Click to expand...

1) The court did dismiss their first amendment claim. I read the case and the court really seemed to minimize the importance of their religious freedom. You may be right when you say that one right can't be practiced when another is infringed, but you do realize that could cut both ways don't you? If we could rightly say the photographer shouldn't pursue his happiness (photography) because he offends the rights of some, then couldn't we in the same vain say that the couple shouldn't pursue their happiness (request photography services) because they offend the rights of some. Or should they both have the right to pursue their own happiness by allowing the photographer to photograph what he wills and allow the couple to request services with a willing photographer. Maximum liberty for both.

2) true, but can't one open a business while reserving their right to maintain their own conscience? This seems basic to freedom.

3) If rights are subject to the whims of the day they don't exist at all. The equal protection of today can be gone tomorrow with that same whim. Have we learned nothing from the civil rights history in this country. You seem to be saying that it's not a matter of not violating rights, but it is a matter of who's rights deserve to be protected and who's rights do not deserve protection. I personally don't believe in "protected classes" of people, I believe in individual rights for all. Where conflict arises, I believe that the resolution should maximize liberty for all parties but not choose whose rights count and whose don't.

4) If I accept your view, Do you truly believe that to decline to provide service is an infringement?

The word infringe is a verb, it requires action. If I choose not to act have I infringed?

It was the gay couple that acted via the court to force compliance. So who infringed upon whom?

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

AGENT J said:

hey look another deflection and ZERO facts to go against what was already pointed out
i presented no argument i pointed out what factually happened, thats your issue, you make believe your opinion is reality and just make stuff up, it all adds up to another fail

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo

What do you actually think your argument implies? Hint: We have three pillars of rights and you just gave one of them away.

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Bob Blaylock said:

1.)The logical conclusion of this is that someone who has moral standards, and is unwilling to take an active part in an immoral activity,, forfeits the right to engage in any business where he might be asked to participate in such an immoral activity.
2.) This leaves only the immoral allowed to engage in that business. I think this is very obviously wrong.
3.) Unless you're talking about a business which is inherently immoral, such as gambling or prostitution or pornography or whatever, a person's moral values ought never be an obstacle to being allowed to practice that business.
4.) Certainly, one should not be prohibited from being a wedding photographer because one's moral principles make one unwilling to participate in a sick mockery of a wedding.

Click to expand...

1.) nope not at all the solution is dont photograph any weddings if one isnt civil enough to play buy public/business laws/rules. nothing is forfeited.
2.) factually false see 1#
3.) your opinions on businesses have no meaning here
4.) sorry those are the rules if one wants to be a public business they have to play by the same rules as us all and cant just magically decided to kick all blacks, women, men, gays etc out thier store.

Their option is to not go into business, not do weddings or simply be private enterprise and do contract work

if one want to be ONLY a wedding photographer and they can only do say JEWISH wedding and no others, thats not to bright.