- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati
Most definitely. Unfortenately for them the world is not black and white (no pun intended). It is many shades of grey. I often argue on behalf of peoples rights even when I don't support those peoples idea's. Such as racism. I may not like racism (in fact I hate it) but I recognize that even racists have rights. And I am not about to take away their rights just to spite them. Because of this standing for peoples rights I have often been called racist and a bigot. All because it's an "them or us" mentality.
Good question. I personally would say that private individuals should still be allowed to sell to them. BUT the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate international trade. And I can understand why it does so security wise. As such I must defer to the Constitution in this and allow the government to regulate such.
/like
Doesn't that always seem to be the way they argue? "Oh if you're against this then you must be supporting that."
Most definitely. Unfortenately for them the world is not black and white (no pun intended). It is many shades of grey. I often argue on behalf of peoples rights even when I don't support those peoples idea's. Such as racism. I may not like racism (in fact I hate it) but I recognize that even racists have rights. And I am not about to take away their rights just to spite them. Because of this standing for peoples rights I have often been called racist and a bigot. All because it's an "them or us" mentality.
Ok given this statement You've brought to mind a different set of conditions. Do you hold this to be true only in the realm of this country or is this a universal stance. IOW, if the US were to impose sanctions (I believe this is the word I'm looking for but correct me if I'm wrong) and ban the sale of goods to say China for labor sweat shop issues, or Saudi Arabia for nuclear weapon issues, is the government allowed to say that you can't sell to business and individuals in those countries? I realize that in a way it is opposite to the current thread in that the government is saying you can't sell instead of you must sell, but it still runs upon the same principle of the government telling you what to do with your property where that action does not invoke direct harm.
Good question. I personally would say that private individuals should still be allowed to sell to them. BUT the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate international trade. And I can understand why it does so security wise. As such I must defer to the Constitution in this and allow the government to regulate such.
Given that we have riots when sports teams lose, is this really a point? Maybe we should be banning sporting events. The four cops beating up the black man were in direct violation of his rights and freedoms. But declared innocent was a travesty of justice. It is not a reason to violate other rights. You don't fix a wrong with a wrong. The King incident and riots would not be changed in anyway by allowing business owners to choose who they do and do not sell to for any reason.
/like