hey ikari
1.)its not public morality, its protecting rights
2.) i would never support any laws in these areas the empowers bigots, to many risks. Where does it stop? where would your line be. bakeries and florist? hospitals and foster care faclities? hotels? Doctors? first aid clinics emergency care clinics? food markets? malls? mechanics? restaurants? walmart etc etc
I think its best, more liberty based, logical and civil if we all play by the same rules. Dont you? I mean if not how do we decided how facilities are grouped?
Otherwise they can pic the 3 choices i already stated. Oh and lets not kid ourselves, they can always do what a lot of people do, practice discrimination but hide it some how. "we are booked that day"
3.) if only the world always worked like this, it doesnt
The last time we had this is was "Whites Only" restaurants in the south. The "intelligent consumerism" that happened was the civil rights movement. Those who opposed equality bombed churches, kindnapped and beat and lynched people, and assassinated civil rights leaders to protect their right to be abusive to minority groups. The movement and it's opposition were extremely costly to the country, and, in the end, we as a society decided not to let that kind of bigotry root itself back into our civilization again. It's just too destructive.
They have the right to buy a cake, from where others buy a cake.Yes, but that's not happening to homosexuals. The worst they face is that some dude doesn't want to make a cake for them. That's not the end of the world. Bombings and lynchings and widespread violence and oppression....that's another story. That's rights violations. But one doesn't have right to another's cake.
No, it's public morality. No man has right to another man's property
1.)No, it's public morality. No man has right to another man's property
2.)Government and emergency care of course cannot discriminate. Perhaps you could make argument that any publicly traded company would have to follow government (public) discrimination laws. But private business is private, I'm not saying you're wrong or that it's irrational. I'm just saying that I'm not sold on it, fundamentally it seems not right to force a man to sell service to one he may not want to. It's his labor, he should be able to deliver it as he feels.
3.)Perhaps, but at heart what we're talking about here are photographers and bakers...I'm not sure it's quite on the level of police or ambulance service.
4.)But just because people are lazy doesn't really give authority then to government force.
I don't know, forcing private companies to behave by public morality, I'm not really sold on it. Private business is private and I think they should be free to refuse service if they want. Intelligent consumerism will sort it all out in the end.
1.)well the courts have said its about rights not morals
2.) government aside why not emergency care? why is that different? i hope you wont be using a moral line? what if im a doctor i buy a little corner place? or what about a pharmist?
3.) as far as FORCED labor they are free to follow the other 3 options
A.) you dont go into public access business
B.) you dont do anything that may offend you so easily or its counterparts. IE if you are christian you cant say you wont do gay weddings but then do bar mitzvahs, you option is to do NOTHING religious. (or hide your discrimintion)
C.) open up a private practice like out of your home or online like the bakery did
or lastly break the law and risk it, maybe pay a fine, maybe go to jail (which i wouldnt support unless it was a very extreme unique case), lose your business or licences suspended
ill give you a scenario and you tell me if this is what you want to empower, now of course i admit my example will be dramatic and a appeal to emotion but it can also easily be reality.
Im a priest driving in the mid west and im wearing my religious attire. i have diabetes. im having an episode and my meds arent working. Finally i come to a gas station/convenience store. I going to buy some OJ or other sugar and use their pay phone inside for medical assistant.
I walk in the door and the owner is muslim, he has no clue why im there but he doesn't want to service me because im an infidel, he claims any service to me would be sin and he orders me out of his store, i try to explain he doesnt want to hear it, he says its his property his store and orders me out.
I leave stumbling to my car, im in real trouble now, i never make the next place and i die or just am found and the paramedics have to get me doesnt really matter
is this what you want to empower?
i also like the pharmacist example, what if that guy was a pharmacist.
now like i said, is this dramatic and a appeal to emotion? hell yeah lol but this could also easily happen without laws protecting our rights
3.) well i definitely think so, i want us all to play by the same rules
4.) lazy? thats not the problem either, it might be fore some but that wouldnt fix it
I think if you exercise your CHOICE to be in the business game you agree to a set of rules that you have to abide by. Don't like the rules, don't get in the game. Sorry, but there comes a time when people need to realize that their actions do have consequences.
That's just a gun to someone's head. "I don't like what you do with your property, so to force you to obey my way of thinking, I'm going to use force against your free exercise of rights and infringe upon your right to property in order to make my morality the accepted and practiced morality" is really what you're saying.
They have the right to buy a cake, from where others buy a cake.
No, what he's saying is that a public accommodation is not a person, so it doesn't have the right to refuse service to anyone based on their membership in a protected class.
No they do not. That's another man's property and no man has right to another man's property.
A private business is property of an individual
A private business is property of an individual, and they most certainly can refuse service less one puts a gun to their head and demands differently.
Nope. It's not "another man's" property
It's the property of a public accommodation
Ignoring the facts won't make them go away
Wrong again
A private business is a legal entity that is distinct from its' owner.
And people can also murder each other unless people use force to stop them. What people can do, and what is legal to do are two very different matters.
1.)But it's not as no man has right to another man's property
2.)Emergency care relates directly to life, which is a right. Denying that can in fact infringe upon the rights of another, it's not mere refusal of property.
3.)Government force against one's property. You have no right to hold a gun to another and demand service. Which is what you're doing.
Maybe it could happen, probably shouldn't be driving around without some sugar because if you had that diabetic reaction while behind the wheel you have just endangered the lives of countless individuals. I'd suggest the priest not be so selfish.
Just out of curiosity, if this is your argument, would you agree, then, that the public could decide not to grant corporate charters to organizations that engage in socially-destructive bigotry, leaving proprietorship -- which are the property of an individual -- free to so engage?
Does the public pay the property taxes? Did public buy the building? Did public buy the supplies for sale?
It's not public accommodation without. Trying to change the definition of private property does not make it go away. You steal from a man, you are a thief; that's all there is to it. You put a gun to a man's head, and you're the initiator of force. That's all there is to it. You merely endorse the use of force against a man's right to property, that's all there is to it. No amount of window dressings is going to make it any different.
I know, I'm talking about the theory of using government force to endorse personal morality, which is what you're doing. And it goes against fundamentals, which I have laid out. You most certainly can have constructed laws and use the guns of government to force your way, but that doesn't mean it's right nor does it mean you aren't forcing the individual to cede right to property for your moral crusade.
I know, I'm talking about the theory of using government force to endorse personal morality, which is what you're doing. And it goes against fundamentals, which I have laid out. You most certainly can have constructed laws and use the guns of government to force your way, but that doesn't mean it's right nor does it mean you aren't forcing the individual to cede right to property for your moral crusade.
1.) thats a reframe the courts are protecting others rights not to be discriminated against, you can have the opinion they have it wrong and thats cool by me but i side with the courts and dissgaree in this situation of public access business.
in others areas youd have my full support though
2.) what if its not life? what if its just a broken arm or leg or burn.
3.) see 1 i dont view that way and neither do the courts. People know the rules of public access business BEFORE they go into the business they arent forced
4.) lol thats funny but millions have sugar and drive and its not selfish. also ignore if its just switched to a pharmacists etc
you didnt answer the question, is that what you want to empower, not support of course but empower
Government force to endorse personal morality is necessary, for example: rape laws. When it comes to personal property, the government should investigate such (and even seize such) in the interest of personal morality, for example: computers and child porn laws.
The public has ultimate say in what businesses operate through the use of intelligent consumerism. That's not government force, that's just informed buying.
You seem to be having an issue with a very well-established feature of Modern America. I can own a gas station as long as I follow the law. One of those laws is I don't get to put up a sign that says "No Jews". That's all, and it's a reasonable limitation on my Property Rights. I can't just bury my old tires and used oil either. There are rules, like it or not.Does the public pay the property taxes? Did public buy the building? Did public buy the supplies for sale?
It's not public accommodation without. Trying to change the definition of private property does not make it go away. You steal from a man, you are a thief; that's all there is to it. You put a gun to a man's head, and you're the initiator of force. That's all there is to it. You merely endorse the use of force against a man's right to property, that's all there is to it. No amount of window dressings is going to make it any different.
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?