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.
Melissa, the owner of Sweet Cakes is not starving.
Look, the problem between you and me, is that you keep looking at particulars instead of the big picture. I am looking at "principles", you are looking at singular events. I realize that she isn't starving, but based on the principle of it, you could feasibly arrive in a situation where you are left with only two choices, comply or starve.
It isn't the particular circumstances that matter, it is the principle that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
For more than a century, outlets serving food to the public have been regulated to ensure sanitary conditions and proper food handling.
That at least can by argued that it "protects people from harm". I'm not a fan of the FDA or of health departments(or the EPA for that matter). But they are at least based on the "Do no harm" principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
If that's too burdensome for you, there are places today that are still totally unregulated in the realm of public health. The people who live in those places try real hard to get out of there and into places where these regs are in place and enforced.
To be fair, the people in those places aren't trying to "get out of there" because of the lack of health regulations. You know it, so why bring it up?
If you want to see what the average person thinks of health codes, you should read about "The Walled City of Kowloon". The whole places was practically nothing but unlicensed doctors and dentists, restaurants, factory workers, and food processors. The lack of health codes deterred absolutely no one.
Living as a hermit is an option for those who find modern society too onerous. And most hermits don't become Ted Kaczynski.
Living as a hermit IS NOT AN OPTION. You simply cannot live without an income. The government declares that if you want to have an income, you have to comply to all rules regarding commerce. This notion that you are given a choice whether to work or not is utterly ridiculous.
As I wrote earlier...
Quote:
Look, a person CANNOT feed himself without earning money. Even if he sells goods only to his family and friends, where do they get money? Don't they have to earn money in "the market"?
I would actually agree with you if an individual, his friends, his family, and his parishioners, could create some kind of "separate economy" from the rest of the country. Where they could operate completely independently, and self-sufficiently.
But the reality is, that is simply impossible. People have to pay taxes, a whole slew of taxes. So someone(and usually a lot of someones) within any group, are going to be forced into the overall market.
To say that anyone who enters the market should be coerced by the government to offer up his labor for the production of something which violates his own conscience, is to to say that a man's labor isn't his own. That you are a slave, that you aren't free, and that at any time the government can force you to do anything, and everything, or face consequences which could feasibly strip away even your ability to feed yourself.
I am fine with government placing "restrictions" on people, to prevent them from doing harm to others. But not making a cake for a gay couple, does absolutely no harm to absolutely anyone. The only harm being done in this scenario, is forcing a cake maker to act against his own conscience, under the peril of weighty punishments.
You pretend that earning money is simply a choice that people can make. The reality is, earning money is a necessity for life on this Earth. Thus, the choice you imagine someone has, is nothing more than the choice between slavery and death.
In all honesty, I challenged you on it. And Bentbow has been making the same argument throughout this thread. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, period. Anyone who is a "strict constitutionalist" knows it.
Ron Paul was against anti-discrimination laws. It is a libertarian position.
So to get your point I have to imagine that the only job in the country is baking? If to prove your point you need to make up such elaborate fantasies, then your point is not that great.
Baking is not a religious freedom, it is commerce. Commerce is regulated. Thus baking cakes for sale is regulated.
Look, I was trying to get you to understand the "principles" of what you are supporting. The principle seems to be that the government should be allowed to pass absolutely any law it wants regulating commerce, and if it affects your occupation and you believe it abridges your rights, then you should find a new profession.
If that is the principle, then the government could feasibly pass any number of laws which abridge any number of rights and that affected any number of professions.
That doesn't mean they will, my point simply is, they could. At least, based on the principle.
Look, do you know what the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people? Because there is no fundamental difference between a person, and his labor. You cannot regulate labor without regulating a person.
If as I said, a person must provide his labor in exchange for an income, to enable himself to feed himself. Then if the government can regulate labor in the unlimited way that you imagine, then the government can regulate a person in an unlimited way as well.
If that be the case, then religious freedom is a farce. Freedom of speech is a farce. Freedom of association is a farce. It only exists insofar as the government allows it to exist.
Look, I was trying to get you to understand the "principles" of what you are supporting. The principle seems to be that the government should be allowed to pass absolutely any law it wants regulating commerce, and if it affects your occupation and you believe it abridges your rights, then you should find a new profession.
If that is the principle, then the government could feasibly pass any number of laws which abridge any number of rights and that affected any number of professions.
That doesn't mean they will, my point simply is, they could. At least, based on the principle.
Look, do you know what the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people? Because there is no fundamental difference between a person, and his labor. You cannot regulate labor without regulating a person.
If as I said, a person must provide his labor in exchange for an income, to enable himself to feed himself. Then if the government can regulate labor in the unlimited way that you imagine, then the government can regulate a person in an unlimited way as well.
If that be the case, then religious freedom is a farce. Freedom of speech is a farce. Freedom of association is a farce. It only exists insofar as the government allows it to exist.
I support the principals of living in a society, which requires rules, among those rules are rules regulating commerce.
Sorry, but I don't dig anarchy.
Well then ... ... ... it will be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court rules in the next week or two on the constitutionality of same sex marriage.
Fortunately they are the ones who get to interpret the Constitution (debated, written and signed not far from my house, BTW) and people with names like "Clark Park" (who admittedly not a lawyer nor constitutional scholar) or "Redshadowz" (ditto).
Well, since you brought it up.
I think the Supreme Court will uphold the previous court rulings, and thus make same-sex marriage a right across the entire country.
With that said, I think that it is the wrong ruling. And it is pretty easy to understand why.
Let me quote myself from a previous thread....
Quote:
Lets understand that the same people who wrote the 14th amendment, wrote the 15th amendment. There was no "mix-up", no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation.
Lets also understand that the debate over same-sex marriage is based completely on the words "equal protection" from the 14th amendment. So what exactly does equal protection mean?
If equal protection means what same-sex marriage advocates say it means, then wouldn't equal protection have granted voting rights to women and blacks? If that is the case, then why did the same people who wrote the 14th amendment, also write the 15th amendment for the exact purpose of granting voting rights to black? For that matter, why did it take another 52 years before women got a right to vote?
Everyone who knows anything about the Constitution, knows that the the current interpretation of the equal-protection clause has absolutely nothing to do with its original meaning. The equal-protection clause actually had to do with protections(IE protection from murder, assault, etc), and had nothing to do with privileges. Had the issue of same-sex marriage come up in 1870, everyone knows the Supreme Court then would have declared without reservation, that the equal-protection clause does not grant a right to same-sex marriage.
With that said, I think by same-sex marriage advocates trying to backdoor the Constitution, by forcing the issue nationally instead of dealing with it on a state-by-state basis. They are creating a dangerous slippery slope, whereby they may actually end up destroying the entire concept of marriage itself(got polygamy?).
With that said, I'm kind of looking forward to the complete destruction of the institution of marriage. I'm personally not married, and have no intention to ever get married(and I'm 34, I'm not a kid).
I've already accepted the idea that the world has gone to crap, and that Christians, through their own stupidity, have given away the world to degenerates and hedonistic/narcissistic scumbags. I just hope I'm still alive to see their stupid faces, so I can point my finger and say "I told you so".
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-16-2015 at 02:54 PM..
I support the principals of living in a society, which requires rules, among those rules are rules regulating commerce.
Sorry, but I don't dig anarchy.
I'm just reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention.
"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
BTW, I wasn't advocating anarchy. I was actually advocating for "classical liberalism". The closest approximation to classical liberalism in modern times would be libertarianism.
I support the principals of living in a society, which requires rules, among those rules are rules regulating commerce.
Sorry, but I don't dig anarchy.
Yes, freedom is messy, yes freedom is complicated, yes those complexities are at times difficult to navigate. Even over 240 years ago at least one of our founding fathers saw the day coming when some would be willing to toss the baby (freedom) out with all the bathwater we put up with in order to have it
"any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both" Ben Franklin
Of which almost no one is. The constitution has long been interpreted not followed to the exact wording.
The problem is the fact the way to many politicians have wanted to interpret the constitution is in a manner to increase their power which has lead to vote buying through government programs and deficit spending.
On the subject of discrimination laws the 14th amendment clearly states the government can not discriminate against people. As for the rest of society it is important to remember you can not regulate morality- it does not matter if you have an anti discrimination law or not- if some one does not want you in their shop they will be rude and to what ever they can to run you off because they are still bigoted jerks who will treat you like garbage because you are differnt.
Yes, freedom is messy, yes freedom is complicated, yes those complexities are at times difficult to navigate. Even over 240 years ago at least one of our founding fathers saw the day coming when some would be willing to toss the baby (freedom) out with all the bathwater we put up with in order to have it
"any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both" Ben Franklin
Another good quote from Franklin line was along the lines "The United States will be a republic if we can keep it." It is important to have clear lines- and limits for the government. As Edmond Burke stated "The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse." and "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."
It is wrong to take anyone choices away with the threat of violence if you do not abide. That is tyranical oppression, by another man.
It is tyranny when the religious expect and demand that others believe the same as they do, it is the religious doing the suppressing and discriminating.
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.
