Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[dblack]

That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

 

[dblack]

Freedom of association;
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;


In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.

Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

 

[dblack]

It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

 

[PratchettFan]

No such thing. This is the Constitution forum and inalienable rights are mentioned nowhere in it.

Now, to the question. Are those rights absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

 

[dblack]

If there's no such thing, the question is moot.

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

 

[Slyhunter]

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

 

[dblack]

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

No.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then the basis of discrimination being a fundamental human right does not exist.

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

I agree it makes no sense, but not because I fail to understand. I think it is you who fail to understand what a "right" is. A "right" has no meaning except in a society. Rights do not exist because they are inherent, any examination of history makes that abundantly clear. They exist because the society says they exist, and they exist in the context of law. To claim rights exist outside of that context may make one feel good, but it is irrelevant. You either have a legal right or you have no right at all. Anything else is, as you say, "made up".

 

[PratchettFan]

If you reject inalienable rights, fundamental rights don't exist.

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

 

[Slyhunter]

I reject pointless adjectives. I could claim I have the fundamental right to free money, but that isn't going to impress a bank. If a "right" has no basis in law, then calling it inalienable or fundamental doesn't make it any less non-existent. So let's stick to rights which do have basis in law.

Is the right to the free exercise of religion absolute or is it balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself or even to impose a standard of behavior?

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

I believe I have already said there is no such thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

 

[dblack]

My usage of the term 'fundamental right' is premised on the idea that such rights are, first and foremost, inalienable rights. If you reject that concept, which I know you do, we have little to talk about.

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

You seem to share PratchettFan's conception of term, which I consider a mis-conception. I think you're missing the point. But it's a subtle argument, and probably not something we can clear up here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Discrimination is a fundamental human right."

That depends on what is meant by 'discrimination.'

Preferring Coke rather than Pepsi is perfectly appropriate; government seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law based solely on who they are is not.

 

[dblack]

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

The question makes no sense in the context of your conception of inalienable rights.

 

[dblack]

"Discrimination is a fundamental human right."

That depends on what is meant by 'discrimination.'

Preferring Coke rather than Pepsi is perfectly appropriate; government seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law based solely on who they are is not.

Governments don't have rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

No one ever said one does.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government – including government regulation of private business.

And when government seeks to regulate business it must do so in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court.

With regard to public accommodations laws, such regulatory measures are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – they in no way 'violate' the rights of business owners, who are subject to all manner of regulatory measures that are likewise Constitutional.

When one engages on commerce he is subject to the regulatory measures of his jurisdiction, where following those measures is not to 'give up' one's rights.

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

No one ever said one does.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government ...

Our rights are subject to restriction when they violate the rights of others, not when they conflict with the interest of powerful lobbyists.