• 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

ernst barkmann said:
i posted the Minnesota law for you

this gives straight or gay couples power to take legal action against a business or person who will not marry them.

look at what dept of government is being used.....The Minnesota Department of Human Rights

NOW WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHT?

it is a natural right?.........if it is ,you cannot use a natural right AGAINST a natural right......IE....right to marry [COUPLE] AGAINST......the right of association[ BUSINESS OWNER/ CITIZEN]


if it is a civil right/ privilege......government cannot give you a privilege on BUSINESS OWNER/ CITIZEN'S property, ..which violates his natural right.


civil rights/ privileges are given by governments...and government HONORS them.....meaning its legal and to have a government officials, marry people of either sex......not force non-government to marry people..[preform a service]
Click to expand...

you need to read the ****ing law

try hard now

Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple who is planning a wedding based on their sexual orientation. To do so would violate protections for sexual orientation laid out in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The individuals denied services could file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights against the entity that discriminated against them.

optional wedding related services provided by people in those related businesses can be compelled not to discriminate but no one is forced to marry any one against their will
 
ernst barkmann said:
involuntary servitude is when you are forced to perform an action against your will, when you have not been convicted of committed a crime /threaten the public's health or safety.

discrimination is not a crime......it does not fall under criminal law....therefore it is unlawful to apply force to people to make them do things....when they have committed no criminal action.....this is constitutional law.
Click to expand...

sorry but you can and should be able to force a business to serve you if their only objection is your Irish and catholic
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you not get is.......why is someone being forced to do something?

their actions, are not violating the rights of other people...........that is the whole reason we have government

you argument is.......... someone is not going to do something ...YOU want done........therefore punish them........

its so amazing people want to rule over other people..........



your idea you follow is to make people equal by law.
Click to expand...

o gods no their forcing money and decency on a**holes run for the hills every one
 
ernst barkmann said:
welfare and common defense!.

...

DUTY OF CONGRESS------------->To pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


your ideas of what society needs to do ,does not override constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Most of this post was completely pointless. It provided absolutely nothing to the issue at hand.

I get it, you don't agree that this is the point. Well, since the SCOTUS has yet to strike down anti-discrimination laws entirely, particularly state level anti-discrimination laws, I'd say that they aren't going anywhere. In fact, I'd say that the power of the states to tell their people they cannot discriminate is pretty much solid. So why does it even matter whether Congress can make such laws?

Selected Supreme Court Decisions

It seems that the Commerce Clause is what is used to enact anti-discrimination laws on a national level.

However, since pretty much every state has anti-discrimination laws, it is pointless to argue where the power comes from for Congress to do it. As long as those laws are applied equally to all (as in they apply to a characteristic rather than a specific group of people) then they wouldn't violate the 14th Amendment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you not get is.......why is someone being forced to do something?

their actions, are not violating the rights of other people...........that is the whole reason we have government

you argument is.......... someone is not going to do something ...YOU want done........therefore punish them........

its so amazing people want to rule over other people..........



your idea you follow is to make people equal by law.
Click to expand...

I'm just torpedoing your ridiculous argument that anti-discrimination laws violate the 13th amendment. You're the one who brought up criminal penalties, as if that was somehow the difference between acceptable involuntary servitude and unacceptable involuntary servitude.

You have yet to explain to me why my recurrent training is voluntary servitude when it's required by federal law.
 
Last edited:
well its time for a recap of activity.

first... i asked what kind of right marriage is...well i only got 1 answer, saying it was civil.

then i stated civil rights ...were privileges......and was told i was wrong.........however i proved that was correct.....in this thread .

i stated civil rights are dispensed by government, and are to be honored by government......not the people, so that you get equality under the law by government.

then i had people who do not understand what equality is under the law...thinking government making people equal by law....is the same thing...so i gave a perfect example of what the difference is.

i stated government cannot give you a civil right on other peoples property, if it violates people natural rights, and the founding principles ..the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE....which i stated was law, part of u.s.code.

again i was told i was wrong about u.s.code, which i provide a link, ......showing myself to me correct.

then i stated if SSM were a right, then citizens / business would be forced to marry people, ...which i was responded to with a ......what citizen?.....what business?, as if this will not happen....again what citizen? , what business?

then i produced 1 single state law,..which stated clearly in it........[individuals and business]...when the .........what citizens and business stopped?

i started you cannot use force on people, because it violate the 13th, because no crime has been committed,...however no one acknowledged that.......because as i have stated in the past discrimination is....administrative law...not criminal law.

i stated people will be forced, and i was told no person would be forced.........a little later i am told straight out....people will be forced

so we have arrived at the force stage now, were those on the left admit people are going to be force to do things against their will.

now i am being told the commerce clause, gives people a right to be served.......well i seem to remember the bill of rights which are amendments to our Constitution came after the constitution itself....which places restrictions on the federal government, and of coarse now the states......that the government shall make no law, infringing on the rights.....which rights in this case are...right to property, right to association......however the left does not or never will believe in property rights.....right to association...well that does not exist either in this case.

what is in the human makeup, of one person wanting to rule over another????
 
Deuce said:
I'm just torpedoing your ridiculous argument that anti-discrimination laws violate the 13th amendment. You're the one who brought up criminal penalties, as if that was somehow the difference between acceptable involuntary servitude and unacceptable involuntary servitude.

You have yet to explain to me why my recurrent training is voluntary servitude when it's required by federal law.
Click to expand...

sorry but you missed my ship.

constitutional law is supreme law...

no person can be forced by government to perform labor for another person,...unless convicted of a crime........discrimination is not a crime.
 
roguenuke said:
It seems that the Commerce Clause is what is used to enact anti-discrimination laws on a national level.

However, since pretty much every state has anti-discrimination laws, it is pointless to argue where the power comes from for Congress to do it. As long as those laws are applied equally to all (as in they apply to a characteristic rather than a specific group of people) then they wouldn't violate the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

so no commerce cover everything doesn't it.

it you will read you will see the commerce clause is also for governments not the people.

constitutional law....discrimination is illegal for government..not the people...........jim crow laws are government instituted discrimination and were illegal...the 14th states clearly....NO STATE....NOTHING ABOUT PEOPLE OR BUSINESS.......again for you...the constitution of the u.s. does not apply to the people, ...the people cannot./again cannot violate constitutional law, only governments can.

its clear by your statement and other, you do not understand the concept of equality under law..........but instead your thinking is ..............equality BY law.
 
blarg said:
sorry but you can and should be able to force a business to serve you if their only objection is your Irish and catholic
Click to expand...

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?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but you missed my ship.

constitutional law is supreme law...

no person can be forced by government to perform labor for another person,...unless convicted of a crime........discrimination is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Discrimination of various sorts is against the law in every state. If the penalty were increased to being a criminal charge, would that make it constitutional, in your opinion?

you claimed my recurrent training isn't involuntary servitude because pilots work for an employer. This isn't always the case. Many pilots are self-employed, or own their flying business. They are forced to spend time and money on this recurrent training by the federal government. (And I still don't see why you'd draw the line between business owner and employee, both are forced to comply with the regulations)

So help me out here. Why is my recurrent training voluntary servitude but anti discrimination laws are involuntary?
 
ernst barkmann said:
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?
Click to expand...

You aren't forced to operate a business that holds out to the public. Therefore it is voluntary on your part to run such a business and make yourself subject to the regulations that apply.
 
Deuce said:
Discrimination of various sorts is against the law in every state. If the penalty were increased to being a criminal charge, would that make it constitutional, in your opinion?

you claimed my recurrent training isn't involuntary servitude because pilots work for an employer. This isn't always the case. Many pilots are self-employed, or own their flying business. They are forced to spend time and money on this recurrent training by the federal government. (And I still don't see why you'd draw the line between business owner and employee, both are forced to comply with the regulations)

So help me out here. Why is my recurrent training voluntary servitude but anti discrimination laws are involuntary?
Click to expand...


if it became criminal law ..yes.......you could force someone...however...should be have a person handcuffed and booked into jail, for not serving another person a hamburger?

pilots.....do you have a right to be a pilot...no...you have a right to seek to be a .......pilot [privilege], and must follow government regulations.... when you become one....... like a doctor

as a business owner i do not sign any contract [license], and my business license...is for tax purposes only...tax I.D.

a person has natural rights, and those rights...cannot be taken away because you are in commerce./a business...commerce is also a right.

how can government make a regulation, which violates your natural right to property, association and commerce......by giving a another person a civil right/privilege on a ......business's property..which violates those natural rights?

government is the one who creates privileges, and THEY...are they ones who have to honor them...not the public.............THAT IS WHAT GETS INTO EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.

when government creates law, to make people all equal, and on the same par with each other via the public itself.......that is equality by law........and not constitutional.

government has no authority to make me be moral to you,........... they only have the power to see i don't violate your rights.........discrimination is not a rights violation by the public...only government its a rights violation.....as stated by the Constitution.
 
Deuce said:
You aren't forced to operate a business that holds out to the public. Therefore it is voluntary on your part to run such a business and make yourself subject to the regulations that apply.
Click to expand...

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, ..
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
if it became criminal law ..yes.......you could force someone...however...should be have a person handcuffed and booked into jail, for not serving another person a hamburger?

pilots.....do you have a right to be a pilot...no...you have a right to seek to be a .......pilot [privilege], and must follow government regulations.... when you become one....... like a doctor

as a business owner i do not sign any contract [license], and my business license...is for tax purposes only...tax I.D.

a person has natural rights, and those rights...cannot be taken away because you are in commerce./a business...commerce is also a right.

how can government make a regulation, which violates your natural right to property, association and commerce......by giving a another person a civil right/privilege on a ......business's property..which violates those natural rights?
Click to expand...

If you want to run a business, you have to follow the regulations that apply to that business, why does the government get to control my access to pilot privileges and not your access to cake baking privileges? Why does a self employed pilot have this control over his life but you don't? Why is regulation only for other people?

Why is commerce a natural right and flying isn't? Flying is commerce.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
so no commerce cover everything doesn't it.

it you will read you will see the commerce clause is also for governments not the people.

constitutional law....discrimination is illegal for government..not the people...........jim crow laws are government instituted discrimination and were illegal...the 14th states clearly....NO STATE....NOTHING ABOUT PEOPLE OR BUSINESS.......again for you...the constitution of the u.s. does not apply to the people, ...the people cannot./again cannot violate constitutional law, only governments can.

its clear by your statement and other, you do not understand the concept of equality under law..........but instead your thinking is ..............equality BY law.
Click to expand...

First of all, I've noticed that you have completely failed to address the point that the states have anti-discrimination laws too. They don't have to justify their laws by the US Constitution, with the exception of ensuring all the rights of the people under the US Constitution are maintained and that they are not coming into conflict with what the federal government is responsible for.

Rights of the people sometimes come into conflict, and considerations must be made for whose rights are more important, particularly when one person/group is doing something that causes harm or hardship to others. If a person is being prevented from conducting business/obtaining necessary items for their survival just due to someone who controls those resources not feeling like doing business with them because of arbitrary reasons, then this does harm or causes unnecessary hardship that also harms society.

Second, I understand exactly how equality under the law works. It is you that doesn't seem to understand this though. If you have two people treated differently by a law and the state is unable to show how this unequal treatment does not further a legitimate state interest, then the law violates the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause. What part of that do you not understand?
 
ernst barkmann said:
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, ..
Click to expand...

All laws are technically based on some morality. That morality may be based in on the views of a supermajority and put into place in a very specific way to limit certain actions that can be taken that are deemed "wrong", but it is still morality.

For instance, there was nothing unconstitutional about Prohibition since it was in fact part of the Constitution. There was no doubt that this was a law based on morality. Ending slavery and preventing slavery from being legal in the US is based on morals that view slavery as wrong. Cruel and unusual punishment, morally wrong. Pretty much all of the rights that we have guaranteed to us are based on beliefs that something is either right or wrong, good or bad, and this belief is held by enough people that these protections have been enshrined within our Constitution, the main law of our land.

From there, laws are meant to uphold that base morality and maintain society. So, when we say that laws shouldn't be based on morals alone, it really is that those lesser tiered laws below the Constitution need to uphold the beliefs laid down by the Constitution, not a group of people's moral beliefs without any regard to the Constitution, or worse, in a way that violates some right/rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
Deuce said:
If you want to run a business, you have to follow the regulations that apply to that business, why does the government get to control my access to pilot privileges and not your access to cake baking privileges? Why does a self employed pilot have this control over his life but you don't? Why is regulation only for other people?

Why is commerce a natural right and flying isn't? Flying is commerce.
Click to expand...

that is true you have to obey regulations on taxes, and health and safety.....their are no moral regulations.

because there is no right to BE a pilot.......there is a right to seek to be a pilot, and in getting a license to be a pilot, for that purpose you have to obey the regulations which cover that license...just like a doctor.......who has a license.

their is no right to BE a business owner....there is a right to seek to be a business owner....as a business owner [with a license].......it is for taxes proposes only, and regulations which cover the tax aspect of your business........other regulations cover the health and safety of the public, and your structure, product you turn out.

by creating discrimination laws, government is dictating moral behavior, and saying it will force on a person.... if they behave in a matter government does not LIKE, making the public treat all people the same ........however government is making the people do things its is the only one that is suppose to obey.

again in constitutional law, it is government which is clearly stated must treat everyone equal........why are people trying to make the public obey laws......which are made and intended for government only to obey?
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is true you have to obey regulations on taxes, and health and safety.....their are no moral regulations.

because there is no right to BE a pilot.......there is a right to seek to be a pilot, and in getting a license to be a pilot, for that purpose you have to obey the regulations which cover that license...just like a doctor.......who has a license.

their is no right to BE a business owner....there is a right to seek to be a business owner....as a business owner [with a license].......it is for taxes proposes only, and regulations which cover the tax aspect of your business........other regulations cover the health and safety of the public, and your structure, product you turn out.

by creating discrimination laws, government is dictating moral behavior, and saying it will force on a person.... if they behave in a matter government does not LIKE, making the public treat all people the same ........however government is making the people do things its is the only one that is suppose to obey.

again in constitutional law, it is government which is clearly stated must treat everyone equal........why are people trying to make the public obey laws......which are made and intended for government only to obey?
Click to expand...

Health and safety regulations can just as easily be seen as "moral regulations". It is simply that most people share the moral standard that businesses must be safe for the workers and those who are engaging in business within the actual place of business, and that there is a standard of health to be met for particular business types.

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.)
 
roguenuke said:
All laws are technically based on some morality. That morality may be based in on the views of a supermajority and put into place in a very specific way to limit certain actions that can be taken that are deemed "wrong", but it is still morality.

For instance, there was nothing unconstitutional about Prohibition since it was in fact part of the Constitution. There was no doubt that this was a law based on morality. Ending slavery and preventing slavery from being legal in the US is based on morals that view slavery as wrong. Cruel and unusual punishment, morally wrong. Pretty much all of the rights that we have guaranteed to us are based on beliefs that something is either right or wrong, good or bad, and this belief is held by enough people that these protections have been enshrined within our Constitution, the main law of our land.

From there, laws are meant to uphold that base morality and maintain society. So, when we say that laws shouldn't be based on morals alone, it really is that those lesser tiered laws below the Constitution need to uphold the beliefs laid down by the Constitution, not a group of people's moral beliefs without any regard to the Constitution, or worse, in a way that violates some right/rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

so your saying technically morality, government can violate the rights of the people........even though government is forbidden to do so by constitutional law?

once something is in the constitution it cannot be challenged,...HOWEVER THE 18TH was a very special amendment...why?.......because it was the only amendment to directly address and limit the people....which as i stated the constitution do not apply to people... but government only.......a citizen cannot violate the Constitution..its impossible.

i don't disagree, about laws being made based on some type of morality........however !......you cannot make a law, no matter how good you think it is, of better it will make society if it violates constitutional law....if that were true, then abortion could be made illegal based on a morality decision by the government, but its not, its based on a woman's right to privacy, her body.

do you wish the government if social Conservatives were to get into office... to state abortions are illegal because its not a moral thing to do.

government is not in charge of our morals, it has not authority to tell us what behavior we must display, how much we drinlk, eat, look a tporn, or any other of those aspects..........why ?...are people willing to turn over their rights to government?...because they wish to achieve and certain outcome?

you say "...not a group of people's moral beliefs without any regard to the Constitution"....discrimination is an emotional response..a feeling about another person.......government is not in charge of my feeling...unless i violate a right of another, most definitively government is stepping in the the morals of the people by creating such laws.
 
roguenuke said:
Health and safety regulations can just as easily be seen as "moral regulations". It is simply that most people share the moral standard that businesses must be safe for the workers and those who are engaging in business within the actual place of business, and that there is a standard of health to be met for particular business types.

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.)
Click to expand...

how do you figure that.....

health means things like food, consumption.

safety means my buildings ,my product, how i store them ,my service which could hurt you physically.

why does it seem...everything a person does these days some law is meant to cover that?

you said--->anti-discrimination laws treat everyone equally....BINGO!!....you just said it...........treats everyone equal.........that is EQUALITY BY LAW WHEN APPLIED TO THE PUBLIC.

equality under the law, applies to the government only...not the people....because the people do not make the laws...... government does.

i gave you a prefect example of equality under the law.......yet..still no one understands it.

equality under the law is not equity by laws...government making people equal thru the public..

can you explain,...why the civil rights laws, of the 14th amendment only address governments..?
 
ernst barkmann said:
so your saying technically morality, government can violate the rights of the people........even though government is forbidden to do so by constitutional law?

once something is in the constitution it cannot be challenged,...HOWEVER THE 18TH was a very special amendment...why?.......because it was the only amendment to directly address and limit the people....which as i stated the constitution do not apply to people... but government only.......a citizen cannot violate the Constitution..its impossible.

i don't disagree, about laws being made based on some type of morality........however !......you cannot make a law, no matter how good you think it is, of better it will make society if it violates constitutional law....if that were true, then abortion could be made illegal based on a morality decision by the government, but its not, its based on a woman's right to privacy, her body.

do you wish the government if social Conservatives were to get into office... to state abortions are illegal because its not a moral thing to do.

government is not in charge of our morals, it has not authority to tell us what behavior we must display, how much we drinlk, eat, look a tporn, or any other of those aspects..........why ?...are people willing to turn over their rights to government?...because they wish to achieve and certain outcome?

you say "...not a group of people's moral beliefs without any regard to the Constitution"....discrimination is an emotional response..a feeling about another person.......government is not in charge of my feeling...unless i violate a right of another, most definitively government is stepping in the the morals of the people by creating such laws.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. The entire point of laws is to limit what people can do.

You are advocating basically for no laws because there are no laws that do not violate the rights of the people in some way or another.

For the record, I generally lean just into pro-life. If I thought it could be done without the practice violating the privacy of the women and possibly forcing them to have children that put them in danger, I would be all for limiting abortions even further than we do now (going off of the in general limit of viability).

Government isn't in charge of our morals, but the government is made up of the people and their morals. The most important moral standard we have is the US Constitution. It can be changed to reflect anything the people want as long as they go through the proper process to make those changes.

It is when you interact with others that your actions become subject to government intervention. When your action causes harm or hardship to someone else, then your right to do something must be weighed against their rights.

Discrimination in business practices is an action, not thoughts/feelings. Those actions may be based on thoughts or feelings, but it is the discriminatory actions that violate the laws. So no, they are not stepping into the morals there. They are promoting the general welfare of the people and maintaining a societal standard to avoid harming one group to support the "rights" of another.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am going to give you a hypothetical.

lets us say marriage is a Right, can someone who wishes to marry, .....use law to force [a church].. [a private business]..... [or government] to marry them?

and if marriage is a right.....is it [a natural right]......or is it a [legal right /civil right].....[civil rights being privileges of government]
Click to expand...

It's a natural right. Right to Contract is a natural right, it stems from property and life.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how do you figure that.....

health means things like food, consumption.

safety means my buildings ,my product, how i store them ,my service which could hurt you physically.

why does it seem...everything a person does these days some law is meant to cover that?

you said--->anti-discrimination laws treat everyone equally....BINGO!!....you just said it...........treats everyone equal.........that is EQUALITY BY LAW WHEN APPLIED TO THE PUBLIC.

equality under the law, applies to the government only...not the people....because the people do not make the laws...... government does.

i gave you a prefect example of equality under the law.......yet..still no one understands it.

equality under the law is not equity by laws...government making people equal thru the public..

can you explain,...why the civil rights laws, of the 14th amendment only address governments..?
Click to expand...

You honestly have a messed up view of how law, particularly constitutional law works. You basically have how you want it to work and how it really works and are unable to recognize that they are not the same.
 
roguenuke said:
You honestly have a messed up view of how law, particularly constitutional law works. You basically have how you want it to work and how it really works and are unable to recognize that they are not the same.
Click to expand...

no it is you.....equality under the law again means government cannot make laws that apply to some people and not others.........that is the simple way to explain it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom