Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody has "the right to do business with anyone they want." because that takes consent out of the business deal.
People claim to be "pro-freedom" by saying that the "rights" of gays must be respected, yet they ignore the fact that they are advocating using the threat of violent force to coerce people into business transactions that they do not agree to.
You can't just make up "rights" like the right to buy cake. Rights are part of rights theory, which lists specific rights... the right to "buy cake from whomever I want" is not included.
Rights can not violate self-ownership, or they are illegitimate. If you force someone to give up labor of the fruits of their labor against their will, you are violating the self-ownership principle.
The fact that you are saying that you can legitimately force people to give away their labor, is a claim of at least partial ownership over them.
I am not anti-gay. I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but I base my political belief structure on freedom and individual rights, that is why it is so insulting when you people claim you are fighting for "freedom". It is more than obvious that you have not read the philosophical works that established rights as a political system. The claims you are making are in DIRECT opposition to the most basic principles of rights theory.
The right to "buy cake" clearly violates self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle which are key tenets to the ideas of rights and liberty.
Ya'll should chew over this quote from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. His works were greatly influential in rights theory and the founding documents of the United States:
Forcing somebody to give up their labor or fruits of, is a violation of natural law.
He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labor: to deny him his labor would be to make him a slave.
I don't understand how people believe that other people need to be forced into behavior can also claim to believe in "freedom". You subscribe to the basis of Thomas Hobbes philosophy, fearing the war of "all against all" but you claim to believe in "rights" which are based off of Locke's philosophy... weird.
I could also quote Voltaire, Bacon, Smith, etc... all day on the issue. Pretty much every philosopher who believes in intrinsic rights believes they are established by self-ownership and protected by the non-aggression principle.
Omg if people actually could turn off their riduculous t.v.'s
& somehow manage to get some reading comprehension skills......
Then read this post- MAYBE they's gain some understanding.
Nah, it's not gonna happen.
Teen mom is probably on, or some other retarded reality show-
Sleazy housewives of New Jersey, lol.......
And who pays for the costs of investigations.......medical exams....deposing....expert witnesses......mileage???
Seriously, are you this dense? What part of c-o-n-t-i-n-g-e-n-c-y did you not understand? All those fall under legal costs, of which plaintiffs are eligible to recover.
Very, very simple.
Quote:
As far as knowing my business.....don't waste your time. (you do know all cost are write offs??)
Actually not all costs are write offs, though generally speaking legal fees are, with some caveats.
Quote:
In an interview last week, Mr. Wood, who is also the author of “Taxation of Damage Awards and Settlement Payments,” said the test for deductibility boils down to whether the payment is a penalty or is meant to be remedial.
That would mean any punitive damages are NOT tax deductible. Your accountant can probably explain it further.
Quote:
I noticed you said you where educated in law.....that must equal unemployed....or, you would have stated your profession.
How is unemployment working out for you???
I didn't answer because it's not relevant to this conversation (my current field is actually more closely related to your own, just FYI) and I have no interest in engaging in ad hominem attacks that you've already had to edit out of one post you directed at me.
Sorry, you'll have to stick to discussing the facts, despite it being a total losing proposition for you.
Seriously, are you this dense? What part of c-o-n-t-i-n-g-e-n-c-y did you not understand? All those fall under legal costs, of which plaintiffs are eligible to recover.
Very, very simple.
Actually not all costs are write offs, though generally speaking legal fees are, with some caveats.
That would mean any punitive damages are NOT tax deductible. Your accountant can probably explain it further.
I didn't answer because it's not relevant to this conversation (my current field is actually more closely related to your own, just FYI) and I have no interest in engaging in ad hominem attacks that you've already had to edit out of one post you directed at me.
Sorry, you'll have to stick to discussing the facts, despite it being a total losing proposition for you.
Seriously, are you this dense? What part of c-o-n-t-i-n-g-e-n-c-y did you not understand? All those fall under legal costs, of which plaintiffs are eligible to recover.
Very, very simple.
Actually not all costs are write offs, though generally speaking legal fees are, with some caveats.
That would mean any punitive damages are NOT tax deductible. Your accountant can probably explain it further.
I didn't answer because it's not relevant to this conversation (my current field is actually more closely related to your own, just FYI) and I have no interest in engaging in ad hominem attacks that you've already had to edit out of one post you directed at me.
Sorry, you'll have to stick to discussing the facts, despite it being a total losing proposition for you.
I do understand what you mean.....however...an attorney could have hundreds of thousands tied up for years. (and would if I were involved)
As an attorney.....would you be willing to be your money in a case like this???
Seriously, are you this dense? What part of c-o-n-t-i-n-g-e-n-c-y did you not understand? All those fall under legal costs, of which plaintiffs are eligible to recover.
Very, very simple.
Actually not all costs are write offs, though generally speaking legal fees are, with some caveats.
That would mean any punitive damages are NOT tax deductible. Your accountant can probably explain it further.
I didn't answer because it's not relevant to this conversation (my current field is actually more closely related to your own, just FYI) and I have no interest in engaging in ad hominem attacks that you've already had to edit out of one post you directed at me.
Sorry, you'll have to stick to discussing the facts, despite it being a total losing proposition for you.
BTW....I did read your link.....and it is correct for a corporation.
I use a schedule "C"....all legal costs are write offs.
Nobody has "the right to do business with anyone they want." because that takes consent out of the business deal.
People claim to be "pro-freedom" by saying that the "rights" of gays must be respected, yet they ignore the fact that they are advocating using the threat of violent force to coerce people into business transactions that they do not agree to.
Are you under the impression that laws one doesn't agree with don't apply?
Quote:
You can't just make up "rights" like the right to buy cake. Rights are part of rights theory, which lists specific rights... the right to "buy cake from whomever I want" is not included.
Really? That's your argument?
Quote:
Rights can not violate self-ownership, or they are illegitimate.
According to whom? Is this the law of the land or just something you read somewhere and liked?
Quote:
If you force someone to give up labor of the fruits of their labor against their will, you are violating the self-ownership principle.
Never heard of it.
Quote:
The fact that you are saying that you can legitimately force people to give away their labor, is a claim of at least partial ownership over them.
Nonsense. You're talking about libertopian gobbledegook, not reality. I'll agree that having to obey the law contradicts libertopian dogma, sure. But we don't live according to libertopian dogma. You can argue that owning a business violates strict socialist dogma too, and I'll agree, and I'll also say "who cares" because we don't live according to that dogma either.
Quote:
I am not anti-gay. I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but I base my political belief structure on freedom and individual rights, that is why it is so insulting when you people claim you are fighting for "freedom".
We aren't talking about you, though. We're talking about the laws that actually exist. I understand that these laws upset you. Who cares?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colorado man forced to bake gay wedding cakes, ordered by judge to attend "sensitivity training"
