Page 119 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1212

Thread: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

  1. #1181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    There is no right to discriminate.
    Find me a human right that doesn't call for it.

    I am being libertarian. I can choose to live and do business in a state that does not have a discrimination law in effect, as could they. Liberty does not mean violating any state law you do not like in the name of religious freedom.
    Liberty is the right to own your life. That you can use your time, energy and talents to go after whatever it is that you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

    If you want a state business license so you can conduct services for the general public, then there are certain people you are obligated to provide services for even if you don't like them. There is no right to deny services. The 13th applied to slavery and involuntary servitude, not paid services, so it is irrelevant to this discussion and a hyperbole at best.
    No one is obligated to serve another as everyone ownership of their body and it's facilities, as such have ownership of their own labor and service and with that right the own property. Furthermore, involuntary servitude is slavery and it does not call for payment.

    Once payment has been rendered for property, it is no longer your property. The customers paid for the cake, therefore the baker was obligated to provide the cake.
    Nonsense. The condition in which the cake was to be made was unknown, and thus, the terms of the contract was yet to made.

  2. #1182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    True, but through court precedent.

    Damn those activist judges! Using the 14th amendment to protect individual liberties! How dare they!
    I consider that a strawman. For one thing, the fourteenth amendment applies to state laws, not individual people, and for another, your argument does not in any way face the reality that the first amendment applies to states.

  3. #1183
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No they aren't.
    Do you really think you can argue this point? What is free speech? Is that a property right? Who has ownership of the speech in question?

  4. #1184
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Find me a human right that doesn't call for it.
    I thought we were talking about the Constitution.

    Liberty is the right to own your life. That you can use your time, energy and talents to go after whatever it is that you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.
    That is your definition. There are plenty of others.

    No one is obligated to serve another as everyone ownership of their body and it's facilities, as such have ownership of their own labor and service and with that right the own property. Furthermore, involuntary servitude is slavery and it does not call for payment.
    That is not how the 13th amendment is written even by a stretch of the imagination.

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    Nonsense. The condition in which the cake was to be made was unknown, and thus, the terms of the contract was yet to made.
    It is known. The baker had already accepted the contract. That is why it is in contention. The baker could have refused the contract for just about any reason prior to taking it, even for artistic license.

  5. #1185
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I consider that a strawman. For one thing, the fourteenth amendment applies to state laws, not individual people, and for another, your argument does not in any way face the reality that the first amendment applies to states.
    Sigh...you don't even know the history you are citing. That is sad. What court case led to the extension of the 1st amendment to states? What amendment did they cite?

    I made my statement for the irony.

  6. #1186
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I thought we were talking about the Constitution.
    I'm talking about both, as it makes no difference to my point.

    That is your definition. There are plenty of others.
    Provide one to humor me.

    That is not how the 13th amendment is written even by a stretch of the imagination.
    Are you arguing that forcing someone into service for you is not making them your slave? How will you go about arguing this point I wonder. Since you claim to be a libertarian do you know why subpoenas violates the thirteenth amendment? For an easier question perhaps, do you know why the draft violates the thirteenth amendment? If you can't answer these question than your lean is even more in question than it is now.

    It is known. The baker had already accepted the contract. That is why it is in contention. The baker could have refused the contract for just about any reason prior to taking it, even for artistic license.
    No, it was not known. The cakes purpose was entirely an unknown and when it was discovered the service was refused.

  7. #1187
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Do you really think you can argue this point? What is free speech? Is that a property right? Who has ownership of the speech in question?
    Free speech. It has nothing to do with property without some serious stretching. I can say plenty of stuff that others have said. No one really owns speech.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #1188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Free speech. It has nothing to do with property without some serious stretching. I can say plenty of stuff that others have said. No one really owns speech.
    You own your person and thus you have the right to speech. There is no other way to look at speech besides a property right.

  9. #1189
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I'm talking about both, as it makes no difference to my point.
    The Constitution has nothing to do with "human rights".

    Provide one to humor me.
    I am not here to humor you. Go find a dictionary. Probably not one so influenced by classically liberal philosophers.

    Are you arguing that forcing someone into service for you is not making them your slave?
    How am I forcing them into service? They chose to do business in a state with a non discrimination law. They can go elsewhere. A slave can't leave. Your hyperbole is astonishing.

    How will you go about arguing this point I wonder. Since you claim to be a libertarian do you know why subpoenas violates the thirteenth amendment? For an easier question perhaps, do you know why the draft violates the thirteenth amendment? If you can't answer these question than your lean is even more in question than it is now.
    I find it odd that your idea of being a libertarian is that everyone has to agree with your ideas of what makes someone a libertarian.

    No, it was not known. The cakes purpose was entirely an unknown and when it was discovered the service was refused.
    It was a contract for a wedding cake. I am pretty sure that its purpose was known. It just was not known it would be used at a same sex ceremony.

  10. #1190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Not if he does this in a way everyone is aware of and can prove.
    Can prove? He has the Bible to support his point of view. What more proof does he need?

    That is the thing about violating laws, if you are going to do it, you need to ensure you do it in a way where you don't get caught. In this case, he openly said he would not sell a cake to any same sex couples because it violates his religious beliefs, yet I'm willing to bet as are others that he does not enforce those same religious beliefs when it comes to selling others wedding cakes, which shows plain bias against same sex couples, and not actual religious convictions in the first place.
    So you prefer that people just lie, and that would probably be against his beliefs as well. This is what bad laws do, It makes otherwise honest people dishonest, and we should not encourage that.

    Although it really doesn't matter because he agreed to the antidiscrimination laws all businesses of the state/area are subject to when he started his business. He doesn't get to violate those laws simply because he doesn't like certain people.
    It has nothing to do with 'like'. And you don't see that he is the one being discriminated against?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •