• 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?

fmw said:
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.
Click to expand...

The business owner and the consumer are not equally protected under the law. A consumer can refuse to do business with a place because it is run by gays. No problem. A business can't refuse service to a person based on the same premise. Aren't rights equal among everyone? Read the civil rights act. In the part about businesses, it doesn't even call them rights. And the majority of the civil rights act is based on the interstate commerce clause even though lots of the businesses don't operate across state lines.
 
pinqy said:
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.
Click to expand...

If serving people isn't a burden on you, why did you charge the business to do it? Did you not have other things you would rather have done in that time you spent serving people?
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only if you assume (incorrectly) it's a right to receive service in a public accommodation. It's not. Which was the original point. It's a privilege protected by law.
 
Phoenix said:
Only if you assume (incorrectly) it's a right to receive service in a public accommodation. It's not. Which was the original point. It's a privilege protected by law.
Click to expand...

The law calls it a right.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it does not, because you are compensated, and are no worse off than you were before. If your cost is $100 and you receive $100 then no burden has been imposed upon you because you are just as well off as you were before. If you receive $100.01 then you are better off than you were before and therefore no burden.

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
there is no right to material goods and services, because they would lay and cost or burden on another person.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If I have a right to material goods and services, then that means that I have a right, without having to give compensation to those goods and/or services. Someone else would have to provide them to me, at their own cost, without compensation.
The right to be treated the same as anyone else is not a burden on others.

In some cases, especially with the ADA, a burden IS imposed on providers of goods and services, in that they must accommodate people with disabilities as long as that burden is not unreasonable. In some cases things like requiring the merchant to widen his doors or build a wheelchair ramp would be unreasonable as the cost would be way out of proportion to the benefits to those in wheelchairs.
 
Phoenix said:
If serving people isn't a burden on you, why did you charge the business to do it?
Click to expand...
Because without compensation, it would be a burden on me. I received more than I valued my labor, so I was better off by working.

Did you not have other things you would rather have done in that time you spent serving people?
Click to expand...
Of course. But the pay I received was worth more to me than doing any of those other things.
 
Phoenix said:
The business owner and the consumer are not equally protected under the law. A consumer can refuse to do business with a place because it is run by gays. No problem. A business can't refuse service to a person based on the same premise. Aren't rights equal among everyone? Read the civil rights act. In the part about businesses, it doesn't even call them rights. And the majority of the civil rights act is based on the interstate commerce clause even though lots of the businesses don't operate across state lines.
Click to expand...

I stand by what I said.
 
prometeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

you were making the point if its not written its not law, you have been proven incorrect on that.

natural rights derive with the natural ability of the body, which is why they are called natural rights
 
pinqy said:
Because without compensation, it would be a burden on me. I received more than I valued my labor, so I was better off by working.

Of course. But the pay I received was worth more to me than doing any of those other things.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They pay you to bear the burden of laboring for them.
 
Phoenix said:
No it doesn't. The law can be named anything Read the civil rights act of 1964. When it addresses businesses, it doesn't use the term right.
Click to expand...

So the things contained in the Civil RIGHTS Law are not rights? That is a bit bizarre?

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation




TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
OOO(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
OOO(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
OOO(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
Click to expand...

So what is this list of things if not rights contained in the Civil RIGHTS Law?
 
pinqy said:
No it does not, because you are compensated, and are no worse off than you were before. If your cost is $100 and you receive $100 then no burden has been imposed upon you because you are just as well off as you were before. If you receive $100.01 then you are better off than you were before and therefore no burden.



If I have a right to material goods and services, then that means that I have a right, without having to give compensation to those goods and/or services. Someone else would have to provide them to me, at their own cost, without compensation.
The right to be treated the same as anyone else is not a burden on others.

In some cases, especially with the ADA, a burden IS imposed on providers of goods and services, in that they must accommodate people with disabilities as long as that burden is not unreasonable. In some cases things like requiring the merchant to widen his doors or build a wheelchair ramp would be unreasonable as the cost would be way out of proportion to the benefits to those in wheelchairs.
Click to expand...

So a right can have a burden attached and you agree it is a burden. We simply disagree on if a burden is attached to service and accommodation.
 
Master PO said:
you were making the point if its not written its not law, you have been proven incorrect on that.

natural rights derive with the natural ability of the body, which is why they are called natural rights
Click to expand...

A legal right and an ability of the body are two different things.

I can poop because it is a natural ability of my body. There is no right to poop.
 
haymarket said:
A legal right and an ability of the body are two different things.

a legal right is written law, natural rights are unwritten law.

I can poop because it is a natural ability of my body. There is no right to poop.
Click to expand...

yes their is a right to poop just like their is a right to speak, eat, drink,
 
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

Life places burdens on all living creatures, business owners and non-business owners.

I don't write the laws, but they burden me anyway, for the most part. Many if not most laws are downright silly. As for me, I don't care if a restaurant owner has his parking lot marked appropriately in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or not.

I'm not really sure of your point here.
 
Master PO said:
no its a right, meaning government has no authority over that ability
Click to expand...

A physical ability is simply that. It is not to be confused with a right.
 
Master PO said:
whats a right then?

please provide information to refute me and not your own personal statement.
Click to expand...

Merriam Webster - an actual dictionary with actual definitions written by experts on the meaning of words in the English language




Definition of legal right
1
a : a claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it
b : the interest in a claim which is recognized by and protected by sanctions of law imposed by a state, which enables one to possess property or to engage in some transaction or course of conduct or to compel some other person to so engage or to refrain from some course of conduct under certain circumstances, and for the infringement of which claim the state provides a remedy in its courts of justice
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
Merriam Webster - an actual dictionary with actual definitions written by experts on the meaning of words in the English language
Click to expand...

this does not explain a right, this deals in the government recognizing a right.

what is a right?

BYE THE WAY, you posted a definition to make a point which states clearly, government recognizes rights, that government does not create them
 
Last edited:
People have a real problem with basic reality.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall establish no religion. Congress shall deny no free practice of religion.

Ta da.
 
VanceMack said:
People have a real problem with basic reality.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall establish no religion. Congress shall deny no free practice of religion.

Ta da.
Click to expand...
The problem is that some people think that "establish no religion" only means creating a formal official church and that anything short of that is allowed. And some people thing that "free practice of religion" means total exemption from any secular law if the act is claimed to be free exercise (and is part of a religion the person supports). And that free exercise is a matter of majority opinion, and there is no obligation to allow minority religions equal freedom.

And others think that no establishment means the government can't even acknowledge the existence of religion (at least not in any positive sense) and that free exercise only applies in private and not in public.
 
Master PO said:
this does not explain a right, this deals in the government recognizing a right.

what is a right?

BYE THE WAY, you posted a definition to make a point which states clearly, government recognizes rights, that government does not create them
Click to expand...

If your government does not recognize it - then its not a right you have and can exercise freely.
 
haymarket said:
If your government does not recognize it - then its not a right you have and can exercise freely.
Click to expand...

wrong, rights exist without government they are just not secure and government uses law to secure them

you have outed yourself again by making it known rights are not created by government
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom