• 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!

Does the Constitution Really Say Freedom of Religion?

So if I present myself to a public accommodation for service - does that not present a burden upon the owner to serve me as he would any of his customers?

Not in my view. A customer is a customer.
 
You don't think minorities have a RIGHT to be treated the same by the government as those in the majority? If not then I think you are dead wrong. Sorry.

Sure I believe they have the right to be treated equal by the government. This is outlined in the Articles in the Constitution. They are applied equally. The concept of "the government" providing an abstract right such as free speech, keep and bear arms, free religion and expression, is completely different than a supposed right to be served by a person.

A person of color walks into a restaurant. Claims they have a right to be served. The cook quits and walks out. Are they going to get served? NO. No one is available to make the food to fulfill the assumed "right". They have a lawsuit maybe but not a right.
 
Some people consider offering hypotheticals as a proper rational discussion. I disagree. Hypotheticals can be useful, but many times they fall way short of substantive discussion of points. Nothing but hypotheticals is a poor excuse for rational discussion of legal principles.

I visit restaurants all the time. Tens of millions Americans do every day. When those real people present themselves to real restaurants to real owners or managers and want a real meal and want real service, does that not place a burden on the owner to provide service according to the various civil rights laws?
 
Not in my view. A customer is a customer.

And serving as customer does not place a burden of the one who does the serving? Apparently you NEVER worked in the restaurant business!!!!
 
already cover in post#176
No you are just repeating a deflection. If they are ot written down they do not exist it is actually that simple. If they are written down, unless they are on the tables given by God to Moses, then they are man made. You have yet to offer any evidence that supports your assertions.
 
No you are just repeating a deflection. If they are ot written down they do not exist it is actually that simple. If they are written down, unless they are on the tables given by God to Moses, then they are man made. You have yet to offer any evidence that supports your assertions.

not a deflection my post went into some detail

you need to understand something, written law is what it says, law on paper.

unwritten law is not written but only recognized by the law.
 
If they are ot written down they do not exist it is actually that simple.

So the English Constitution doesn't exist?

Millions of Brits wait in bated breath for your answer.
 
not a deflection my post went into some detail

you need to understand something, written law is what it says, law on paper.

unwritten law is not written but only recognized by the law.
All nice claims but where is the evidence?
 
All nice claims but where is the evidence?

well first off, it might be helpful for you to know britain has a constitution, however its an unwritten constitution

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution


Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.

In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unwritten-law/
 
Splitting hairs on a bald man's head is a bad practice and a waste of time.

There's no hair-splitting. You said what you said, and it was dumb.
 
well first off, it might be helpful for you to know britain has a constitution, however its an unwritten constitution
Not helpful at all. I spent a couple of semesters at Cambridge and even though it was quite some time ago I still recall some things. Indeed they have no piece of parchment or a set of rules that was adopted at one time by some legislative body, yet what they do have is very well defined and documented to not use the term written. It is not just pulled from thin air at the whim of the people or courts.

It is no different from case law here or SCOTUS decisions which have the power of law as in Roe for example.

Still to imply that rights come from nature or are undocumented is naive at best.
 
There's no hair-splitting. You said what you said, and it was dumb.
If you take it out of context, but if you wanted to honestly participate in the discussion why would you do such a dumb thing?
 
My church showed a film by a group called the Wall-Builders that stated that the intent of the 1st amendment wasn't Freedom of Religion, but Freedom of Conscience. This was in the 2nd last week before the election. They followed that up with a video clip - a plea from Ben Carson for a vote for Republican candidates.

Sounds like your church should lose their tax exempt status.
 
If you take it out of context, but if you wanted to honestly participate in the discussion why would you do such a dumb thing?

"Splitting hairs." "Out of context." Any more of the usual excuses you want to throw in? How about "semantics"?

You said something dumb, full stop.
 
"Splitting hairs." "Out of context." Any more of the usual excuses you want to throw in? How about "semantics"?

You said something dumb, full stop.
Repeating your rant will not add to its validity.
 
Repeating your rant will not add to its validity.

Oh, I forgot that one: "rant." Defined, of course, as "you saying something inconvenient to me." Another of the lamest of the lame "debate tactics."

Pointing out that you said something dumb is not a "rant."

But hey, explain exactly how I took you "out of context." Details.
 
And serving as customer does not place a burden of the one who does the serving? Apparently you NEVER worked in the restaurant business!!!!

Nope. A restaurant is in the business of serving food to people who want to eat and can pay for the food. Not a burden. A basic purpose of the business.
 
Sure I believe they have the right to be treated equal by the government. This is outlined in the Articles in the Constitution. They are applied equally. The concept of "the government" providing an abstract right such as free speech, keep and bear arms, free religion and expression, is completely different than a supposed right to be served by a person.

A person of color walks into a restaurant. Claims they have a right to be served. The cook quits and walks out. Are they going to get served? NO. No one is available to make the food to fulfill the assumed "right". They have a lawsuit maybe but not a right.

A business has the right to refuse to do business with any one, just as a consumer has the same right. A customer has a right to be treated like any other customer. These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm in the e-commerce business. We don't know the ethnic background of our customers. Ethnic background doesn't even enter into our business. Yet I have "fired" customers. I have fired them for credit card chargebacks, attempted theft, actual theft, country of order origin, mistreatment of an employee and any number of reasons that I consider valid and appropriate. If one of them were to complain that I refused their business on minority grounds, it would get nowhere with me.

I don't know the ethnic background of the customers. But I assume some of the "fired" have been minorities. There are many valid reasons to refuse to do business with a customer or prospective customer. Minority status, however, isn't one of them and shouldn't be one for anybody.
 
"Civil rights" are not actual rights. They are a set of laws. Your earlier reasoning in the thread is the defining criteria for not being a right. A right can not contain the requirement of being supplied by another person. This would require trampling on one person to provide for the other.
Civil rights laws certainly burden [some] people because they force them to serve someone they would not otherwise serve. They must do something against their will.

Sorry, doing business with someone is not a burden. It is the purpose of a business. Lots of valid reasons to refuse to do business with someone. Ethnic background simply isn't a valid one. Hence it is not a burden. Lots of negative things occur in running a business. Successful business people take them in stride and adapt.
 
And serving as customer does not place a burden of the one who does the serving? Apparently you NEVER worked in the restaurant business!!!!
I have, and I never saw it as a burden, because I was getting paid for doing a certain job. Asking me to do more than what I had agreed to or was reasonable would have been a burden, but not simply doing my job.
 
Nope. A restaurant is in the business of serving food to people who want to eat and can pay for the food. Not a burden. A basic purpose of the business.

That is baloney and you know it. A previous poster said the exercise of a right imposes no cost or burden on anyone else. That is what I am speaking to and to ignore that context is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. When I show up and demand service, that does indeed impose a burden on the person obligated to perform that service.

here was the original statement

Quote Originally Posted by Master PO View Post
there is no right to material goods and services, because they would lay and cost or burden on another person.
 
Last edited:
I have, and I never saw it as a burden, because I was getting paid for doing a certain job. Asking me to do more than what I had agreed to or was reasonable would have been a burden, but not simply doing my job.

But it is indeed a burden imposed on others. For me to exercise my civil right to service in a pubic accommodation, that indeed places a burden on someone else to do something regardless if they want to do it happily or not. And it is that simple reality that proves WRONG the statement from another poster that a right imposes no cost or burden on others.

here was the original statement

Quote Originally Posted by Master PO View Post
there is no right to material goods and services, because they would lay and cost or burden on another person.
 
Back
Top Bottom