• 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!

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

ok, i say your right.....can you as a person exercise a natural right over my natural right?

Yes, generally this can happen when rights come into conflict. Which right comes out on top depends on the rights in question, the force being applied, and the specific situation. For instance, you can infringe upon one's natural right to life should they exercise their natural rights (say to keep and bear arms) in a way that threatens your own.
 
Yes, generally this can happen when rights come into conflict. Which right comes out on top depends on the rights in question, the force being applied, and the specific situation. For instance, you can infringe upon one's natural right to life should they exercise their natural rights (say to keep and bear arms) in a way that threatens your own.


100 % correct......in that case.....but can you demand from me, a ships captain that i marry you on my ship if aboard, and assert a natural right over my natural right to property, association.
 
100 % correct......in that case.....but can you demand from me, a ships captain that i marry you on my ship if aboard, and assert a natural over my natural right to property, association.

No, the Marriage Contract is a government issued and recognized contract. You can demand from the government that it marry you, and the government must comply. Individual practitioners, like religion for instance, have no obligation to marry anyone.
 
And anti-discrimination laws treat everyone equally. You cannot discriminate against someone who is Caucasian or Asian, any more than you can someone who is African American. You cannot discriminate against a man any more than you can a woman. You cannot tell anyone that you will not do business with them due to their religious beliefs or lack there of. (Now, these are subject to the business being open to the public and some certain other considerations, but the basic application of these laws is still equal treatment.)

I dont think this is entirely so. My general understanding is that historically, discrimination is permitted in regards to contracts, but not services. This is because a contract involves not only a arrangement for a specific function, but usually involves more active and personal involvement by the owner. As a result, freedom to decline contracts is linked to the implied right of freedom of assosciation.

For example:
A Muslim restraunt owner must serve say, Jews in his restaraunt. I think the same owner, however, can decline a catering contract to a Jewish oriented event on Zionism. Anecdotally, I have a friend who declines contracts to DJ gay weddings. He would, however, need to sell records to gays if he had a store.

No, the Marriage Contract is a government issued and recognized contract. You can demand from the government that it marry you, and the government must comply.
The Supreme Court has not taken this step yet. Marriage is a societal definition regarding a state of being. As such, the society (the State) currently can place decline to give individuals (or in the case of polygamists, groups of individuals) marital status.
 
No, the Marriage Contract is a government issued and recognized contract. You can demand from the government that it marry you, and the government must comply. Individual practitioners, like religion for instance, have no obligation to marry anyone.

thank you..you are 100% correct...government must comply.
 
The Supreme Court has not taken this step yet. Marriage is a societal definition regarding a state of being. As such, the society (the State) currently can place decline to give individuals (or in the case of polygamists, groups of individuals) marital status.

The Marriage License (which you need to be married) is government issued and recognized contract. Marriage lost its societal definitions once government usurped it.
 
The Marriage License (which you need to be married) is government issued and recognized contract. Marriage lost its societal definitions once government usurped it.

That license is derived from the authority of the people in the society acting as a collective whole and is an affirmation that the relationship in question cooresponds to the societal definition of marriage. No society is compelled to recognize all relationships as constituting a "marriage".

The society may authorize the State to decline giving marital status to homosexuals, heterosexuals (in theory, but hard in practice), polyamorous, and polygamist relationships. Likewise, the Society may recognize, some, or all of these relationships as constituting marriage and authorize the State to give licenses affirming this.

When applied to the USA, marriage is a states rights issue to be decided legistaltively or by referendum.
 
equality under the law as explained by the founders, thru constitution.


Article. IV.Section. 2......this clause is speaking to state governments in the Constitution

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges [civil rights]and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


this means that any state which dispenses privileges and immunities to the public, ...MUST GIVE THE same privileges and immunities to citizens of other states who enter that state.

privileges can be fire, police protection, licenses, among other things.

immunities are, that no citizen of another state, can held accountable for an offense of the law that would not apply to a state citizen.....MEANING you cannot make 1 person [non -citizen] adhere to a law, and another [citizen] go free for the same action.



AMENDMENT XIV..............civil rights amendment

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ......nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property[natural rights], ............ without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [civil rights]


the 14th states clearly..government must comply with all civil rights laws, treating people equal...............IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A CITIZEN OR A BUSINESS MUST COMPLY WITH THE LAW.....constitutional law...does not apply to the PUBLIC
 
Last edited:
i see your not for liberty, but instead for whatever you wish to impose.

let see your positions i have seen so far which are floating around.

force people to pay more taxes.

force people to be part of a healthcare system

force people to serve other people.


Irish and Catholic?

nope definitely not for total liberty at the expense of others
 
no i am not forced to operate a business, ..but i have a right to commerce...the buying and selling of goods, from those who will deal with me.

regulations are created by government to see that the health and safety of the public is not at risk......along with tax regulations.........there are no moral regulations...that would be unlawful....because government cannot dictate morals, ..

um the only people violating a right to commerce with those who will deal with them are the bigots
 
people don't violate right to commerce

governments violate right to commerce, people only commit crimes.

well governments letting people do business with you who want to. so no violation or crime every one wins

the Irish Catholics avoid discrimination and the bigots make money
 
well governments letting people do business with you who want to. so no violation or crime every one wins

the Irish Catholics avoid discrimination and the bigots make money

guy i understand you don't like bigots and discrimination...i think its wrong myself....however a person has to stick to the principles of rights....not how one feels about things.

if we as a people prohibited everything we did not like people doing when they excised their rights.....no rights would exist.
 
guy i understand you don't like bigots and discrimination...i think its wrong myself....however a person has to stick to the principles of rights....not how one feels about things.

if we as a people prohibited everything we did not like people doing when they excised their rights.....no rights would exist.

as other posters on hear have mentioned its legal for the government to set regulation on business this is no different
 
as other posters on hear have mentioned its legal for the government to set regulation on business this is no different

its not constitutional..but hey the federal government and states don't follow it.

because as i stated you cannot exercise a right on another citizen, to apply force to him.

you can apply force to a government to make them do things..because they don't have rights but powers...rights override powers
 
its not constitutional..but hey the federal government and states don't follow it.

because as i stated you cannot exercise a right on another citizen, to apply force to him.

you can apply force to a government to make them do things..because they don't have rights but powers...rights override powers

It is completely constitutional to regulate business for the good of society. There are definitely some limitations to it, but we also have to recognize that people are dependent on other people in our society. This means that it would be wrong and cause harm and hardship to others if some people are allowed to deny others services or goods based on no other reason except personal bigotry or dislike of certain characteristics of a person.

And yes, I understand that many wrongs have been justified as being for the "good of society". But some things just are. If we were perfect, we wouldn't need to regulate anyone's behavior with laws. Unfortunately, we are not perfect. Not even close.
 
It is completely constitutional to regulate business for the good of society. There are definitely some limitations to it, but we also have to recognize that people are dependent on other people in our society. This means that it would be wrong and cause harm and hardship to others if some people are allowed to deny others services or goods based on no other reason except personal bigotry or dislike of certain characteristics of a person.

And yes, I understand that many wrongs have been justified as being for the "good of society". But some things just are. If we were perfect, we wouldn't need to regulate anyone's behavior with laws. Unfortunately, we are not perfect. Not even close.

i did not say regulation of commerce cannot take place, however you cannot make a commerce law, which violates a right.

the commerce clause was made binding in 1788, the bill of rights in 1791... [ which was meant for the sole purpose of preventing the powers of government from violating rights of the people] ...which make it unconstitutional for government to make any law which violates the rights of people.

that right being: right to property

right to association

right to commerce.

government is to secure those rights...not to make laws infringing on them no matter how good you think government laws make society.

i could say its makes a better society to guarantee every person....food, and water...........however that would be unconstitutional also.
 
Last edited:
i did not say regulation of commerce cannot take place, however you cannot make a commerce law, which violates a right.

the commerce clause was made binding in 1788, the bill of rights in 1791... [ which was meant for the sole purpose of preventing the powers of government from violating rights of the people] ...which make it unconstitutional for government to make any law which violates the rights of people.

that right being: right to property

right to association

right to commerce.

government is to secure those rights...not to make laws infringing on them no matter how good you think government laws make society.

i could say its makes a better society to guarantee every person....food, and water...........however that would be unconstitutional also.

So then we couldn't make a lot of laws we have because they can violate rights in one way or another. We couldn't outlaw yelling "fire" in a crowded building since we have a right to say whatever we want. In fact, most laws dealing with copyright would be unenforceable because it could easily be argued that there is the right to free speech (or expression, including written expression of speech) and not a right to ensure that what you come up with, creatively is guaranteed to only make you money. We couldn't outlaw any religious practices no matter how harmful or burdensome they may be. We couldn't outlaw any sort of defamation. We could not outlaw even nuclear missiles being owned by private citizens. We couldn't have any form of punishment since technically all punishment could be considered "cruel and unusual" to someone. There are many more.

Rights are always weighed against the good of others and how those rights may be in contention of other rights others have, even those not necessarily recognized explicitly by the US Constitution.
 
So then we couldn't make a lot of laws we have because they can violate rights in one way or another. We couldn't outlaw yelling "fire" in a crowded building since we have a right to say whatever we want. In fact, most laws dealing with copyright would be unenforceable because it could easily be argued that there is the right to free speech (or expression, including written expression of speech) and not a right to ensure that what you come up with, creatively is guaranteed to only make you money. We couldn't outlaw any religious practices no matter how harmful or burdensome they may be. We couldn't outlaw any sort of defamation. We could not outlaw even nuclear missiles being owned by private citizens. We couldn't have any form of punishment since technically all punishment could be considered "cruel and unusual" to someone. There are many more.

Rights are always weighed against the good of others and how those rights may be in contention of other rights others have, even those not necessarily recognized explicitly by the US Constitution.

if you yell "fire" in a theater..you are not held accountable for the words "fire"..your speech..you are held accountable for the pain and suffering ,lose of revenues, or even death it may cause....so its not your speech....it what your speech causes.

if you yell "fire", and no one moves, their is no pain and suffering or death, and no lost of revenue...what is your crime?........because their is no victim........

its when you use your speech to damage someone, causing physical pain suffer, lose of revenue, lost of a position which brings in revenue, reputation ...that is a violation.......hurting your feelings is not violation


nuclear missiles are not arms...they are ordnance..not covered by the constitution.

the idea of laws is to secure rights of the people..NOT APPLY FORCE...........if no rights are being violated, then government has no authority to act..

can government make it illegal for people to have purple hair?........no!..... because someone having purple hair, does not violate the rights of the people.

this in turn makes it illegal for government to create a law, which violates rights......yet their is no victim for the law to be made in the first place.


THE EASIEST WAY I CAN SAY THINGS IS......when government makes a law on people, there has got the be the possibly there is going to be a victim..........no victim.. no law!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom