• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Republicans’ Gay Freakout

Yes it was! Baking a cake for a interracial couple, TOTALLY violated my rights as a God-Fearin', Gun Totin' Amurrican.

LOL then i suggest you get out of the marriage service business !!!


Hey, Uncle Sam, it's mah god damned right to sell pornography, but it's against mah religun to sell pornography to humons, so you bettah buy it all from me for a million buckaroos or i'll sue ya!
 
Well, here in the United States, and by proxy Western Society, we've come into a contract of governance with one another, and we have decided that everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Yeah that's great, so where is this contract that I signed? Do you have a copy of this contract and do you have proof of my signature?
 
Yeah that's great, so what contract did I sign? Do you have a copy of this contract and do you have proof of my signature?
It's not a literal 'contract'. It's people coming together and deciding what's best for our society.
 
It's not a literal 'contract'. It's people coming together and deciding what's best for our society.

When did I do that? I don't remember being party to any of this stuff.
 
If the language you speak does not use the standard English definition of the word "right", you've set yourself up to disagree with everybody who is speaking English...

What you consider a Right is not a right, but rather an immoral imposition of force by the state.

We hear so much about "rights", a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food, a decent job and, more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from? If you said "From some other American", go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.

Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"

As human beings we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us." By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft; the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.

If you're a Christian or simply a moral human being, you should be against these so-called rights. After all when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure that he didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress. Moreover, I'm sure that if you were to have a heart to heart conversation with God and asked him, "God, is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property, property that Congress has taken from another American?" I'm guessing He'd say that being a recipient of stolen property is also sinful.

Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society; they're wishes. As such I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.
Rights versus Wishes
 
Okay, so you think rights were violated when people had to bake cakes for interracial marriages ?

Or second marriages ?

Etc etc ?

I do. You do not have a right to other people's stuff, nor to force them to violate their faith, so long as their faith does not itself violate your person or property.
 
I do. You do not have a right to other people's stuff, nor to force them to violate their faith, so long as their faith does not itself violate your person or property.
What is this 'stuff'?

People using their faith as a justification to deny gay people public services is a big violation of their person and rights to me.
 
Your rights end where my rights begin. You can't use your religion as a crutch for discrimination.

What right do you have to another's property?
 
Sorry if you thought the 1st Amd was about protecting bigots who cowardly hide their bigotry behind claims of religion.

You think the 1st Amendment means anything if it only applies to some kind of sanctioned list of approved ideology?
 
Your rights end where my rights begin. You can't use your religion as a crutch for discrimination.

I guess it's a good thing then that potential consumers don't have a right to someone else's property, association or labor. :2razz:
 
What is this 'stuff'?

People using their faith as a justification to deny gay people public services is a big violation of their person and rights to me.

Public services, absolutely - everyone should have equal access to the police, the highways, the DMV, etc.

Private services, not so much. You don't have the right to force someone to provide you with goods or services against their will.
 
Even if you were correct that religion was the true and only source of the discrimination, the 14th amendment's equal protection takes precedence, as it came later. To establish protections race, sex etc, government MUST also protect sexuality

I didn't persecute anyone either. If you want to discriminate, don't open a business in public. Start a private club like the KKK. This isn't a hard distinction to grasp

Could you point out to the part of the Constitution that says you only have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association except if you open up a business, then that all goes out the window.
 
You may have not had a direct involvement in it, but OUR society most definitely was involved in it.

Yeah, the entire idea of holding people to terms kind of depends on their agreement. If someone else comes along and makes that agreement for them, then to put it bluntly, it's bullcrap.
 
Public services, absolutely - you should have just as much right to access the police, the highways, the DMV, etc.

Private services, not so much. You don't have the right to force someone to provide you with goods or services against their will.

Well these private businesses are opening their stores up to the public, and they shouldn't be able to deny people from using the goods in their store because of stupid religious reasons, or any other petty reasons why.
 
Yeah, the entire idea of holding people to terms kind of depends on their agreement. If someone else comes along and makes that agreement for them, then to put it bluntly, it's bullcrap.
You understand that society constantly changes itself, right? What it views as moral and not moral?
 
Okay, so you think rights were violated when people had to bake cakes for interracial marriages ?

Or second marriages ?

Etc etc ?

If they were opposed to it and the government forced the issue then why wouldn't it be a violation of their rights?
 
You understand that society constantly changes itself, right? What it views as moral and not moral?

I just don't buy that. I think people do things they know is wrong because they can personally benefit from it. People just spend a lot of time justifying things they know is completely ****ed up.
 
I do. You do not have a right to other people's stuff, nor to force them to violate their faith, so long as their faith does not itself violate your person or property.

LOL- if it's against your religion to bake wedding cakes, don't bake wedding cakes.
 
Calling Walter Williams an idiot merely solidifies my opinion of you.

Yeah, a Rush Limbaugh guest, who is an "economist," on the issue of what a "right" is- he's no expert on that subject.
 
However, I am sad that some libertarians understand neither that they are basically anarchists in their opposition to all things government, nor that "totalitarianism" describes Soviet Russia or North Korea, but not at all the United States of America***.

Libertarians are by no means anarchist. We just happen to believe that it's not the government's place to enforce made up rights that infringe on actual rights of the people. They are the one group who actually has a decent grasp of what real rights, freedoms, and liberties are. The rest are just authoritarians swinging a two-edged sword. You use the government to force your form of morality then cry foul when the other team uses that same sword to swing it in their direction. And back and forth and back and forth the pendulum swings.

It is further unfortunate that libertarians, who puff themselves up on their statements about individual rights, defend the violation of the rights of others.

***which would not function as a country if so-called "libertarians" had their way.

1. Where is there, or how do you derive, the right to another person's private property?

2. Actually, we existed as a country for many a year operating on a system with less rights than what Libertarians support, so I'm not sure where you are coming up with this "would not function as a country" narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom