Page 120 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122 LastLast
Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1212

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

  1. #1191
    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
    The Constitution has nothing to do with "human rights".
    Oh? How very interesting. What do you think the first amendment protects? What about the second?

    I am not here to humor you. Go find a dictionary. Probably not one so influenced by classically liberal philosophers.
    Is there something wrong with my definition? You have yet to tell me where it is in fact wrong.

    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.
    Again, if someone was to sue these individuals for failure to serve them are you arguing that they are not asserting in the court of law that they have a right to an involuntary servant?

    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.
    You don't seem to support the central axiom of libertarianism; in that, that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Your support of anti-discrimination laws is in clear violation of that principle, and your denial to answer very obvious violations of that principle is very telling that you do not in fact agree with it.

    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.
    Exactly. It was not known what the cake was to be used for. That is exactly my point.

  2. #1192
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Oh? How very interesting. What do you think the first amendment protects? What about the second?
    Civil liberties.

    Is there something wrong with my definition? You have yet to tell me where it is in fact wrong.
    Nothing wrong. It is an opinion. There are others.

    Again, if someone was to sue these individuals for failure to service them are you arguing that they are not asserting to the fact in the court of law that they have a right to an involuntary servant?
    I am not asserting that anyone has a right to an involuntary servant. That is your silly hyperbole.

    You don't seem to support the central axiom of libertarianism; in that, that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Your support of anti-discrimination laws is in clear violation of that principle, and your denial to answer very obvious violations of that principle is very telling that you do not in fact agree with it.
    I did not say I supported anti discrimination laws. I said that I don't have to live where they have anti discrimination laws.

    Exactly. It was not known what the cake was to be used for. That is exactly my point.
    It was a wedding cake. As such, the contract was accepted on those terms. There was nothing in the contract that said that it could not be used for same sex ceremonies.

  3. #1193
    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
    Civil liberties.
    So what do you think a civil right is?


    Nothing wrong. It is an opinion. There are others.
    Then offer one.

    I am not asserting that anyone has a right to an involuntary servant. That is your silly hyperbole.
    How are you not?

    I did not say I supported anti discrimination laws. I said that I don't have to live where they have anti discrimination laws.
    Then where would you live?

    It was a wedding cake. As such, the contract was accepted on those terms. There was nothing in the contract that said that it could not be used for same sex ceremonies.
    Nope. The terms of the contract must involve what it is for.

  4. #1194
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So what do you think a civil right is?
    Individual freedoms that are protected from infringement by the government.

    Then offer one.
    The ability to act on your own free will and to take responsibility for your own actions and not to diminish or harm others in the process.

    How are you not?
    Because your argument is ridiculous and inane. It relies on the notion that a baker who chose to set up shop in a state with a nondiscrimination law and who was penalized when he declined to fulfill the terms of the contract because his patrons were gay is the equivalent of a slave who is held against his will and forced into unpaid labor.

    Then where would you live?
    I already live in a state without discrimination protections for gays and lesbians.

    Nope. The terms of the contract must involve what it is for.
    I think the courts determined that the contract adequately defined what the cake was for because it was a wedding cake. Wedding cakes are for weddings. It is literally in the name.

  5. #1195
    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
    Individual freedoms that are protected from infringement by the government.
    And individual freedom are?

    The ability to act on your own free will and to take responsibility for your own actions and not to diminish or harm others in the process.
    The first part of the sentence contradicts with the second part of the sentence pretty badly.

    Because your argument is ridiculous an inane. It relies on the notion that a baker who chose to set up shop in a state with a nondiscrimination law and who was penalized when he declined to fulfill the terms of the contract because his patrons were gay is the equivalent of a slave who is held against his will and forced into unpaid labor.
    I already told you that involuntary servitude is not dependent on payment, and furthermore, I have already told you that people have the right to their own service. The very fact that the law ignored that human right does not change the fact that the baker did not desire to provide their service to the consumer and that the state punished the baker when the customers took them to court. That is in fact punishing the baker for practicing their rights.


    I already live in a state without discrimination protections for gays and lesbians.
    And that won't last either. That however was not what you said. You said, living in a state without anti-discrimination laws. We both know that is not possible.

    I think the courts determined that the contract adequately defined what the cake was for because it was a wedding cake. Wedding cakes are for weddings. It is literally in the name.
    What kind of wedding it is just so happens to be not in the name, and that is exactly where the problem came up.

  6. #1196
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.
    On the contrary - NAACP v Alabama. Freedom of Association is inherent in freedom of speech.

    Exactly how does a non discrimination law that requires people to provide services to gays and lesbians lead to violation of their religious beliefs?
    If you use the power of the State to seek to force people to participate in activities that violate their religious precepts (for example, forcing a Muslim grocer to make you a pork sandwich, or forcing a Catholic church to allow you to hold a gay wedding in its chapel, or forcing a Southern Baptist to attend and photograph a gay wedding), then you are asking them to violate the tenets of their faith.

    I also find it amusing that conservatives call their disobedience to laws, "annulment" based on their particular interpretation of the Constitutionality of laws.
    I find it interesting that someone who claims to be a libertarian is so quick to reach for the sword of the state to wield against those who disagree with him on sexuality. "Keep government out of our bedrooms and our bakeries", perhaps, might be more consistent.

  7. #1197
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

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

    Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I just don't like it when people quote the Constitution as if that were how it were originally written.
    Once again, live by that sword, die by that sword. See post #1171.

  8. #1198
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Still only goes so far, otherwise no anti-discrimination laws would hold up ever under Constitutional scrutiny.

    And freedom of association really deals mainly with a person's right to join groups or be associated with other people, not in whether or not they have some sort of freedom not to ever do some sort of business with certain types of people.
    Sure they would, just not the ones dealing with sexual orientation.

    Freedom of association goes both ways, you get to choose whom you wish to associate with and whom you do not.

  9. #1199
    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 clownboy View Post
    Sure they would, just not the ones dealing with sexual orientation.

    Freedom of association goes both ways, you get to choose whom you wish to associate with and whom you do not.
    Wrong. If one set of anti-discrimination laws held up, they all would.

    No you do not have complete freedom of association. You cannot choose for example who your kid's teacher is unless there is an issue with them. (For instance, you cannot say that your child must have a male or female teacher, a black or white teacher, a Christian teacher, a married teacher, or even a gay/straight teacher etc. in a public school.) You don't get to decide who serves you at the DMV or other government offices. And when you go into business, you agree to abide by antidiscrimination laws.

    Freedom of association has been held to apply to associations, not businesses, particularly not businesses that are completely open to the public. If you disagree, then show where the SCOTUS has said otherwise. The SCOTUS has even upheld antidiscrimination laws against homosexuals. Romer v Evans.
    "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.

  10. #1200
    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
    Freedom of association has been held to apply to associations, not businesses, particularly not businesses that are completely open to the public. If you disagree, then show where the SCOTUS has said otherwise. The SCOTUS has even upheld antidiscrimination laws against homosexuals. Romer v Evans.
    A business is the property of individuals. Just sayin'..

Posting Permissions

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