Page 55 of 68 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 679

Thread: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

  1. #541
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Seriously, dudes..are we really fighting the CRA all over again?
    Yes, it is still a violation of human rights.

  2. #542
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    Indeed he does that when he puts the "OPEN" sign in the window without any declared restrictions.
    No, he doesn't. You do not get the right to someones elses property because you're an ignorant boob and they failed to correct you before you entered the property.

    No on a whim. Once the OPEN sign is up there is a contract in place and he can not rescind it.
    Yes, he does. You are only permitted on the property because the owner says so.

    It is not a privilege when you ask me to com to you.
    He never did any such thing, and if that did occur it wouldn't be bidding.

    Why else would you ask him to come to your business?
    No one asked you to come.

    No right of the business owner is violated. His contractual obligation has to be met.
    The government can not craft a contract that violates human rights.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-27-14 at 09:04 PM.

  3. #543
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    No they come from the social contract we all entered and agreed upon.
    I never signed something called the social contract. Each person owns themselves and their facilities and because of this they have the right to life, liberty, and estate.

  4. #544
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    James Madison, Property
    29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

    This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

    In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

    He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

    He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

    He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

    Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

    More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

    A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

    If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

  5. #545
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    Of course not, they lack the integrity to admit that, but that doe not dissolve their bigotry.

    I couldn't care less, you obviously are not looking in the right places.

    You mean like the self righteous so called Christians who call those who do not share their belief sinners?
    What you fail to recognize is that bigotry in not limited or exclusive to a specific demographic.

    It is not my "saying so" that betrays their bigotry it is their actions or intended actions in this case.

    I really do not care how I look to someone who defends bigotry, the important thing is that I am not one.

    BS. In thins case gays wish do not wish to be treated in any other way than everyone else.

    Yet self righteous so called Christians want to treat them differently. That is why they are bigots.

    Because I do n want anyone treated differently? Maybe you do not know what bigotry and narrow mindedness is while displaying it yourself.

    Yet the law that was proposed would allow them to treat some differently.

    No, that is all I wish.

    Then they should not put themselves into that situation which they did by opening a business to the public.

    Because it was against the gay community under the guise of religious freedom. Nobody assaulted or even brought into play their beliefs.

    But to some bigots it seem to be so.

    It has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with legitimizing discrimination or bigotry by zealots.

    Nobody said they are out to get anybody, including the gays. They just wanted to legitimize their bigoted views.

    They are welcome to try.

    I do not have an agenda and could care less about the reverends. But it is clear that religious zealots do have one even though it is clearly failing.

    I did, long time ago.

    I never said it did and fortunately it does not revolve around bigots and their lackey defenders no matter how much they think it should in order to placate their religious beliefs.
    Bull****. You are a bigot. You've got some kind of hard on for Christians and consider yourself better than them. Newsflash, you're not. They are entitled the their opinion every bit as much as you are. That's what equality is. It's a shame your life has no meaning, but that is your problem, not theirs. Trying to belittle them to make yourself feel better isn't going to change that. Assuming that all Christians are the same is narrow minded and short sighted. We have a guy here who stands on the town square with a bullhorn and a sign screaming about gays being sinners. He is a deluded ass. You are the other side of the same coin.

  6. #546
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by tech30528 View Post
    Bull****. You are a bigot. You've got some kind of hard on for Christians and consider yourself better than them. Newsflash, you're not. They are entitled the their opinion every bit as much as you are. That's what equality is. It's a shame your life has no meaning, but that is your problem, not theirs. Trying to belittle them to make yourself feel better isn't going to change that. Assuming that all Christians are the same is narrow minded and short sighted. We have a guy here who stands on the town square with a bullhorn and a sign screaming about gays being sinners. He is a deluded ass. You are the other side of the same coin.
    sorry dude im not buying it' i'm a christian and nothing in his post bothered me because it was clearly directed at the christians that want to treat people as lessers and want the law to make them lessers/keep them lessers


    well thats not me so it didnt offend me one bit
    this guy is NO WHERE NEAR the retard in the square you talked about

    are you a christian that wants others to not have the same rights as you, or wants to treat others as lessers and wan the law to do so also? if not then that post should of had no effect on you

    if so then it explains your misplaced post
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #547
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sababa View Post
    If that law protects them yes. I am sorry why you don't understand that if there are laws against certain forms of discrimination and that is why a gay couple could sue the company that discriminated against them. But certainly the straight couple could sue.

    When you say illegal what do you mean?
    Oh! So everyone's rights aren't equal, after all?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #548
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    this question goes unanswered!!!!................" what rights violation is talking place when a customer is refused service........someone please tell me the recognized right per the constitution"

  9. #549
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    this question goes unanswered!!!!................" what rights violation is talking place when a customer is refused service........someone please tell me the recognized right per the constitution"
    there is factually no rights violation for being denied service LMAO
    i think you may be in the wrong thread
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #550
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Oh! So everyone's rights aren't equal, after all?
    exactly you just proved it is equal, your post failed again and facts win again lol
    you might want to study up on this subject first before talking about it

    these rights apply to us all
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 55 of 68 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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