• 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!

Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

Why should your civil rights trump my right to freely practice my religion? Why should the government be allowed to deny me my right to freely practice my religion?

good thing this factually is not happening
 
good thing this factually is not happening

It's not happening a lot (because most people are generally sane and agreeable) but it is happening and, with some of the rules in the PPACA, happening at the federal level too.
 
What dysfunction is my religious belief creating?

It doesn't have to be a religious belief. It could be a perfectly secular belief like discriminating against whites. However, as long as you're around, here are some examples of how some religious beliefs create dysfunction:

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LGBT rights in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...paganda-law-world-olympics-africa-gay-rights/

Political policies created for the purpose of sheltering religious discrimination do create dysfunction within a society. It allows for the social, economic as well as cultural isolation of groups. They without a doubt have been shown to grow into full fledged persecution efforts. This bill? It basically threatened to put Arizona one step away from prosecuting homosexual acts.
 
yah this failed strawman was tried in court, did you read the ruling, now print is hard to read but by the ruling it seemed the judge almost pissed himself with laughter over that failed strawman

theres NOTHING you described (even with the factual inaccuracies and fantasies) that gives one the right to violate the rights of others

If you really believed that then you would be all over those laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity that are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. If you really believed the jive you type you would admit these sexual orientation and gender laws have serious flaws. They frequently fail to protect the civil liberties of Americans, especially when it comes to property rights and our religious liberty. And if you really believed in freedom....Americans must be free to live and love how they choose. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.
 
Maybe I'm missing something....what are you talking about?

Apparently, if a business discriminated it would create social dysfunction. And the dysfunction would be in regards to a sexual revolution. I have little sympathy for that argument that rights must be eroded in order to silence dissent against relativist trends.
 
It doesn't have to be a religious belief. It could be a perfectly secular belief like discriminating against whites. However, as long as you're around, here are some examples of how some religious beliefs create dysfunction:

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LGBT rights in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Not Only Country With Anti-Gay Laws

Political policies created for the purpose of sheltering religious discrimination do create dysfunction within a society. It allows for the social, economic as well as cultural isolation of groups. They without a doubt have been shown to grow into full fledged persecution efforts. This bill? It basically threatened to put Arizona one step away from prosecuting homosexual acts.

What you linked to are instances where there is a state sanctioned religion. We don't have one of those in the US and as long as we choose individual liberty over state control we most likely will never have one of those.
 
Lol, people create the laws the government operates by - they don't get to turn around and then violate and abuse those laws. What concept of legality do you have a problem with? Actually, what part of "You don't live in a vacuum" do you have trouble with? Here is the best part:

1. The constitution (supreme law of the land) agrees that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
2. Court case after court case have agreed that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
3. Legal scholars have agreed that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.

What did the term regulate mean in 1787. Why is it that business is not listed in the commerce clause? Don't you think that is kind of odd? I mean why did they list commerce between all these entities and just leave off business? Interesting, isn't it? Then again, what did the word regulate mean? Hmm..

Hardly matters though. If they aren't in violation of anyones rights, and they aren't, than the state has no justification to act.

Why is it that you disagree with the concept of law as conceived by the people? Never mind, weren't you the guy who didn't see how using child porn hurt people?

If you don't understand the intent of that question yet, you never will. I have explained that question many times over and if you ever feel like it you can click on the quote of that question in Sanghas(however you spell it) sig and find that at no point did I endorse or condone anything nor did I offer my opinion on the matter. It was a question, that's it. Drop it.
 
Stop giving me legal drivel that violates property rights. A business is the property of the owner and like any other property owner they have a right to their property.This is not what you think it is. I'm arguing human rights, you're arguing unjust laws designed to give government power over private property. You're argument must assume violation of property rights is just and for that very reason you lose.

Apparently you missed that little tidily-bit in the Constitution regarding the power to regulate commerce. Don't like it? Amend it.
 
As we learned with the Abortion debate, your higher goal doesn't come at the expense of an individual's liberty.

Your individual liberty does not come at the expense of the greater good.
 
1.) im not sure what you are asking?
is it fitting and proper for the caterer to not service the KKK?
sorry you lost me

2.) sometimes it most certainly has and does
especial in the political world or TV world as far as interviews public speaking

for examples a politician or a police chief or a doctor or producible may be addressing a crowd and say African Americans or waitron

but in real life, me an you, friends at a football game or walking down the street. If you said African american and not black id laugh at you, if you said waitron instead of waiter or waitress id probably ask you "what did you just say? " lol

so yes i agree in some cases its out of control

but in the case of rights its not, it cant be
because the alternative is no rights

rights must apply to us all in general or they are too fragile

even more fragile than the already are and more pron to people violating them, if they are made unequal then what happens when you or me are on the unequal side?

I didn't state that succinctly.... The thought was concerning a Black caterer to cook and staff a KKK event... The law might say he must perform regardless...but is it fitting and proper to force the caterer and staff to be subjected to something so repugnant to them?

These types of laws are double edged indeed a conundrum.

Thom Paine
 
Apparently you missed that little tidily-bit in the Constitution regarding the power to regulate commerce. Don't like it? Amend it.

Same questions to you then. What did the term regulate mean in 1787? Why isn't business listed in the commerce clause?
 
Your individual liberty does not come at the expense of the greater good.

Liberty is a human right, so unless you can show how the actions violate someones rights, yes, it does.

Btw, do you support banning vices? Many of those have advise affects on society.
 
I never said I didn't have to follow it.

Oh good! At least you've grown up enough to realize you don't live in a vacuum. Now, if you'd only realize that laws aren't bad simply because you don't like them.

The government creates laws. At least know the basics before posting. Otherwise, we will never get anywhere.

Who makes up the government? The people. The people create laws. I think you don't see when you argue in circles. You don't like the laws because they violate the rights of the people - who purposely create those laws to define the extent of the rights they gave themselves. So what exactly are you arguing against? People defining the extent of their rights? Or you not liking the extent to which the rights have been defined?
 
What you linked to are instances where there is a state sanctioned religion. We don't have one of those in the US and as long as we choose individual liberty over state control we most likely will never have one of those.

Out of those 3 countries, only 1 has a state religion. Neither Uganda nor Russia have state religions.
 
Your individual liberty does not come at the expense of the greater good.

That's a scary position that could be used to justify any government action. We're over populated so you need to have that abortion "for the greater good". You will always have the ability to make money so we're just going to take what you've already accumulated and disperse it to others "for the greater good".
 
Oh good! At least you've grown up enough to realize you don't live in a vacuum. Now, if you'd only realize that laws aren't bad simply because you don't like them.

Who exactly thinks they live in a vacuum? Please, tell me one person that believes that. I want to talk to them. Oh, and I see you're lying about my position again. My argument deals in human rights, not "I don't like it", but thanks for misrepresenting my argument.


Who makes up the government? The people. The people create laws. I think you don't see when you argue in circles. You don't like the laws because they violate the rights of the people - who purposely create those laws to define the extent of the rights they gave themselves. So what exactly are you arguing against? People defining the extent of their rights? Or you not liking the extent to which the rights have been defined?

The ruling body makes up the government. Why are you lost on this stuff?
 
We kiss our rights good bye more and more, everyday.

The right to be a bigot only exists in the individual mind. It does not extend beyond that. Sorry....it just doesn't....
 
The right to be a bigot only exists in the individual mind. It does not extend beyond that. Sorry....it just doesn't....

Do you care to tell me how you can have any rights at all without essentially the right to discriminate? This is not a trick question, nor am I saying I agree with discriminating business practices, but it's interesting when I see posts like that because I don't think you understand the ramifications of your argument.
 
I didn't state that succinctly.... The thought was concerning a Black caterer to cook and staff a KKK event... The law might say he must perform regardless...but is it fitting and proper to force the caterer and staff to be subjected to something so repugnant to them?

2.)These types of laws are double edged indeed a conundrum.

Thom Paine

the law doesn't say that though, the law is smart in those regards age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion and sometimes sexual orientation was picked for a reason.
even though the law doesnt say this i go with your scenario just to save time

he doesn't have to open a public access business, he CHOSE to and he new the rules and laws and how they work and had to apply to be a business etc.

He would have to be a complete moron to think he'd never have to interact with anybody of an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion and sometimes sexual orientation he didnt like and then CHOOSE to break the law and illegal discriminate against them and think its ok

he could simply not open a public access business
contract the work out to another business
not illegal discriminant
or lie about the reason
or open a totally provide business like out of ones home or on line etc

they law wouldn't be forcing him it would be his choice

2.) again although your example doesnt apply i understand what you are saying ans this is simply how freedom and rights work theres no other way
 
the law doesn't say that though, the law is smart in those regards age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion and sometimes sexual orientation was picked for a reason.
even though the law doesnt say this i go with your scenario just to save time

he doesn't have to open a public access business, he CHOSE to and he new the rules and laws and how they work and had to apply to be a business etc.

He would have to be a complete moron to think he'd never have to interact with anybody of an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion and sometimes sexual orientation he didnt like and then CHOOSE to break the law and illegal discriminate against them and think its ok

he could simply not open a public access business
contract the work out to another business
not illegal discriminant
or lie about the reason
or open a totally provide business like out of ones home or on line etc

they law wouldn't be forcing him it would be his choice

2.) again although your example doesnt apply i understand what you are saying ans this is simply how freedom and rights work theres no other way

You do realize that your entire argument is saying that if people wish to practice their rights as a business owner they should avoid opening a certain kind of business, right? That is an absolutely terrible argument. The entire point of having a government in the first place is so we can have our rights protected.
 
Same questions to you then. What did the term regulate mean in 1787? Why isn't business listed in the commerce clause?

Who cares? This isn't 1787 and both the manner in which our society does business and the mores and values of society have changed. We are not bound by 18th century dictionaries or perceptions of commerce. The Constitution has always been, must be, and will continue to be interpreted in the context of modern society and the text's modern applications.
 
1.)If you really believed that then you would be all over those laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity that are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
2.) If you really believed the jive you type you would admit these sexual orientation and gender laws have serious flaws.
3.) They frequently fail to protect the civil liberties of Americans, especially when it comes to property rights and our religious liberty.
4.)And if you really believed in freedom....Americans must be free to live and love how they choose.
5.) Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms.
6.) All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.

1.) if those actually existed i would but they dont, you are makgin it up and nobody educated and honest buys it
this as already been proven. if you disagree simply provide a factual example i grantee it will fail and facts will defeat it
2.) nope they are just the same as age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion they are no more or no less pron to the pros or cons of those

again if you disagree give is a factual example

3.) false see 1 and 2

4.) i agree that is way equal rights for gays is winning and it is why you do not believe in freedom because you want to deny them, thank you for saying that, WOW that like the third time you proved our points for us. Lets read what you wrote again "Americans must be free to live and love how they choose" i agree now you should start fighting for equal rights for gays

5.) i agree and they are already protected again thats our point, you want to go beyond that you want special treatment

6.) this is already true you can act how ever you want as long as it doesn't break the law or infringe on rights, this is the same for EVERYBODY, again you are supporting the facts and equal rights and proving your own failed argument wrong.

thanks!
 
Who cares? This isn't 1787 and both the manner in which our society does business and the mores and values of society have changed. We are not bound by 18th century dictionaries or perceptions of commerce. The Constitution has always been, must be, and will continue to be interpreted in the context of modern society and the text's modern applications.

Did you amend the constitution to change it's meaning? No? Good, so it still means what it did in 1787 and business is still not listed.

Btw, do you know what the word meant? You do realize your entire argument is built on that word right?
 
Did you amend the constitution to change it's meaning? No? Good, so it still means what it did in 1787.

No amendment is necessary in interpreting the constitution. If the founders had intended for the Constitution to be interpreted solely in the context of 18th century terms, societal needs, and values then they would have defined the precise meaning of the terms contained therein and would not have granted the Supreme Court the authority to interpret it. The Constitution itself is very open-ended in places and the Commerce Clause is one of them.
 
You do realize that your entire argument is saying that if people wish to practice their rights as a business owner they should avoid opening a certain kind of business, right? That is an absolutely terrible argument. The entire point of having a government in the first place is so we can have our rights protected.
as usual 100% wrong lmao holy cow how could you even make up something so absurd
no what i said is one should choose to BREAK THE LAW and INFRINGE on others rights then act shocked they are in hot water
then i suggested if they cant do that there are ways around it so they can hide thier criminal activity or have different rules that they will find easier not to break
i love when you make up complete bs strawmen and they totally fail. its HALARIOUS
 
Back
Top Bottom