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.
Again, just insults from you. Can't muster an argument???
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
I have an issue with states issuing licenses. If I want to become a pharmacist I should be able to pursue that goal and become one without interference from the state. I am fine with private organizations like the American Pharmacists Association issuing licenses and accreditation though so that consumers can go to a pharmacist who has passed some sort of test and has proven to have a reliable track record.
No it is not. You don't understand "systematic persecution" do you? Being denied entry onto private property is not "persecution" nor is it "systematic."
Yes, the government DOES have the monopoly on force. It is the only entity that can roll up on a pizza parlor and force them to sell to someone they do not want to. They are the only entity that can legally detain and imprison you. They are the only entity that can carry out the death penalty, or wage war. If you do not agree try and imprison someone or force a business to sell to you at gun point and see what happens.
It is hard to argue with someone who does not understand basic ideas like "systematic persecution" or "monopoly of force" and resorts to a lot of question marks and exclamation points to make "points."
Being denied entry into a business can and is persecution. And when that denial is part of an organized and specific system that defines who will be admitted and who will be denied entry, that is systematic.
No, the government does not have the monopoly on force. Persons and organizations with resources are all able to pressure and coerce people to do things. Legally or otherwise. You made a very broad and general assertion, which I challenged. Now you are refining that assertion but it doesn't negate my assertion that other parties can and do pressure and coerce people to do things. Hence, the government doesn't have a MONOPOLY on force.
It IS hard to argue with someone who does not understand basic ideas like "systematic persecution" or "monopoly of force".
I get that you didn't appreciate my sarcasm. I don't care, though.
Despite me saying many times that I think the baker was wrong?
Apparently I have missed that, I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
No, I see a difference in public actions and private ones. Should a city bus line be able to discriminate on who they pick up? No they should not be able to. The Constitution requires the government to treat everyone the same. It's why the Supreme Court will side with allowing gay marriage. I absolutely agree with that.
Individuals should not be held under the same constraints. One is forcing the government to live by the Constitution. The other is making a law against someone offending you.
I think the issue is a bit broader than offending someone. To me, calling someone derogatory names or laughing at their buck teeth is offensive, but it is also just part of life. (Although if it is done in my presence, the offender will get called on it.)
Telling an otherwise unobjectionable person that their money is not legal tender in your store isn't just offensive, it is barring them from participation in the public marketplace because they are, in your eyes, not a fellow citizen deserving of their own constitutional rights.
I think the issue is a bit broader than offending someone. To me, calling someone derogatory names or laughing at their buck teeth is offensive, but it is also just part of life. (Although if it is done in my presence, the offender will get called on it.)
Telling an otherwise unobjectionable person that their money is not legal tender in your store isn't just offensive, it is barring them from participation in the public marketplace because they are, in your eyes, not a fellow citizen deserving of their own constitutional rights.
Again, there is no Constitutional right. I know you have seen where I have pointed this out to you before.
I didn't follow that story but people have an actual right to protest actions they do not like.
They have an actual right to conspire together across state lines in an effort to sabotage and ruin her business, harass and intimidate her, and make death threats, ultimately resulting in the shutdown of her business?
So, if there is a similar campaign against someone close to you or that you support, with the same tactics and results, you will tell that person that these people who have just ruined you are just exercising their rights and too bad for you, right?
They have an actual right to conspire together across state lines in an effort to sabotage and ruin her business, harass and intimidate her, and make death threats, ultimately resulting in the shutdown of her business?
Outside of death threats, yes they do.
Quote:
So, if there is a similar campaign against someone close to you or that you support, with the same tactics and results, you will tell that person that these people who have just ruined you are just exercising their rights and too bad for you, right?
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean but yes, they are exercising their right to protest. That is an actual Constitutional right.
Being denied entry into a business can and is persecution. And when that denial is part of an organized and specific system that defines who will be admitted and who will be denied entry, that is systematic.
No, the government does not have the monopoly on force. Persons and organizations with resources are all able to pressure and coerce people to do things. Legally or otherwise. You made a very broad and general assertion, which I challenged. Now you are refining that assertion but it doesn't negate my assertion that other parties can and do pressure and coerce people to do things. Hence, the government doesn't have a MONOPOLY on force.
It IS hard to argue with someone who does not understand basic ideas like "systematic persecution" or "monopoly of force".
I get that you didn't appreciate my sarcasm. I don't care, though.
The government is the only entity ALLOWED to initiate force. Others can do it, but they'll be punished by the government. If the average citizen or business forced anyone to do anything against their will, they wouldn't get away with it. The government does. Someone can pressure you, but they can't threaten you with violence.
Most people (those who aren't sociopaths) won't resort to violence to settle disputes, but will use reason - like what we're doing now. If they want to do something that would normally be a violation of their neighbor's rights, they go to the government for societal permission to do it. That's why I always ask how the government has any right to initiate force when no individual on their own has that right.
Being denied entry into a business can and is persecution. And when that denial is part of an organized and specific system that defines who will be admitted and who will be denied entry, that is systematic.
No, the government does not have the monopoly on force. Persons and organizations with resources are all able to pressure and coerce people to do things. Legally or otherwise. You made a very broad and general assertion, which I challenged. Now you are refining that assertion but it doesn't negate my assertion that other parties can and do pressure and coerce people to do things. Hence, the government doesn't have a MONOPOLY on force.
It IS hard to argue with someone who does not understand basic ideas like "systematic persecution" or "monopoly of force".
I get that you didn't appreciate my sarcasm. I don't care, though.
Just because other entities can use force doesn't negate that the government has the monopoly of force. Government is the only entity that can INITIATE force without consequence. Again if you disagree try to imprison someone, start a war, or execute them. I did not "start out with a broad assertion and then refine" you just don't understand how monopoly of force works. Nor do you understand "systematic persecution."
Just because other entities can use force doesn't negate that the government has the monopoly of force. Government is the only entity that can INITIATE force without consequence. Again if you disagree try to imprison someone, start a war, or execute them. I did not "start out with a broad assertion and then refine" you just don't understand how monopoly of force works. Nor do you understand "systematic persecution."
You guys are completely hijacking the thread.
This thread is about the "Religious Liberties" bill that Indiana passed and the clarifying addendum known as the "fix". This law only exists as an extension of the First Amendment's protections of the free exercise of religion. So all of this talk about hypothetical property rights has nothing to do with this subject.
The other piece of legislation that is relevant to this discussion is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the homo-fascists claim as their authoritative source for why the US Constitution does not apply here. Of course this argument is specious.
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.
Just because other entities can use force doesn't negate that the government has the monopoly of force. Government is the only entity that can INITIATE force without consequence. Again if you disagree try to imprison someone, start a war, or execute them. I did not "start out with a broad assertion and then refine" you just don't understand how monopoly of force works. Nor do you understand "systematic persecution."
