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.
A law isn't unjust because you decide it is. A law isn't unjust because it says you have to be a better person than you want to be. A law isn't unjust because it makes things more just for other people at the expense of the tyranny of the majority you want to engage in.
A law is unjust if it seeks to impose the will of one upon another. In this case, forcing a business to provide goods or services to a customer the business does not wish to serve would be unjust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
What puerile mudslinging should apply to people would presume that breaking laws should have no consequence
I never made that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
or presume that they are the final arbiter of what laws are or are not just?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that government has no intrinsic authority, only that which the people allow it to have, and only because government is charged with protecting the rights of the people. Thus, government is not the final arbiter of whether a law is just of unjust, we the people are.
A law is unjust if it seeks to impose the will of one upon another. In this case, forcing a business to provide goods or services to a customer the business does not wish to serve would be unjust.
I never made that claim.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that government has no intrinsic authority, only that which the people allow it to have, and only because government is charged with protecting the rights of the people. Thus, government is not the final arbiter of whether a law is just of unjust, we the people are.
We the people are coming down hard on the bigots in Indiana right now.
Since when do Republicans want personal freedom? They want freedom to regulate your life and let corporations polute the air and water. They want us in a constant state of war and to suppress voting by non republicans. Yet, they still vote for these hate filled people time again.
Wake up America! GOP= GREED OVER PEOPLE..
I think you were right. What's your take on the direction this is heading?
I suspect that Governor Pence will be asking the state Attorney General for an opinion regarding whether the new law would pass Constitutional muster. I also suspect that said Governor will include a private side-note to his formal request, such as "It doesn't, get us out of this difficulty". Said Attorney General will then issue his or her opinion (probably pretty quickly).
Of course, I have no idea whom the Attorney General for Indiana is. He (or she) may well be of the opinion that said law is Constitutional, and that his or her office will defend the law in Court (especially if said AG has his or her sights set on the governor's office, and thinks said law is popular with the majority of Hoosiers).
Pence was asked six times, point blank, by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” if, under the law, it would be legal to refuse service to gay customers. And six times, Pence ducked the answer, finally saying only, "Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination."
That giant sucking sound you hear is Pence's presidential hopes swirling the drain. And he knows it.
If you do not want to sell your product(s) to someone because to their religion, sex, color or all the rest of the discriminatory reasons then get out of business. The only legitimate consideration a business has about its customers is their ability to pay for what ever you are selling. That is all.
Where does anyone acquire the right to tell a business owner who he/she must sell to? It's also odd to me that people treat owning an "official" business differently than selling something on eBay, or Craigslist, or any other transaction. It's all voluntary trade. If one side doesn't consent, why do people think they can step in and force them to do it anyway? See my first sentence...
Pence was asked six times, point blank, by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” if, under the law, it would be legal to refuse service to gay customers. And six times, Pence ducked the answer, finally saying only, "Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination."
That giant sucking sound you hear is Pence's presidential hopes swirling the drain. And he knows it.
It's hard to have one iota of feeling for his disappointment.
The bill was controversial before he signed it, and unless he sleepwalks frequently, he knew *exactly* who was supporting the bill and why, and of course, he knew *exactly* who was opposing the bill and why.
Does the 'right to be a jerk' include the expectation of receiving a service? If I go to a business & am denied a service, am I being punished? Do I have the right to ask why? Do I have the right to make an appeal to a third party?
The current law in question favors the business owner over the non business owner, & is apparently designed to remove recourse or appeal.
You're not being punished. It's like saying that you're punishing someone of the opposite sex by not dating them. You have the right to ask why, sure...but why would a third party need to step in? It's between you and the owner of what you're trying to purchase, and if one side doesn't consent, I guess the deal won't be done.
Quote:
What about an employee of a business who denies service based on irrational reasons? Does one have to suspend one's reason in order to remain employed?
The type of reasoning encouraged by laws such as these cause more problems than they seek to resolve.
Yes, if the owner decides that his or her business will or won't do something, the employee should respect that. If not, they could potentially be fired. It's not the employee's business...it's the owner's business, and he or she hired the employee to help. If you open a sandwich shop, business increases, and you need a helping hand, you'd hire someone to assist you. Does that mean they now have the right to overrule you on how to run the shop?
Quote:
A neutral, generally applicable law is constitutional unless irrational. This assertion has been used to expand individual rights. Here it is being used to deny individual rights.
Deny what rights?
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.
