CDZ Liberty

[task0778]

. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Yep- I haven't seen that enumerated power in the constitution. Can you point it out for me?

14th amendment I think.

 

[Gdjjr]

Individual rights, IOW the right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Individual rights start with Individual choice. Limiting or restricting choice through the threat of force is immoral.
To be "treated the same as everyone else" means everyone else, not just a few selected by law. By definition, like everyone else means to act like everyone else. It is an Individual right to act as one pleases as long as another isn't harmed- just like everyone else.

 

[Gdjjr]

. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Yep- I haven't seen that enumerated power in the constitution. Can you point it out for me?

14th amendment I think.

Prove it- don't think it.

 

[task0778]

I do think there are instances where your right to practice your religious belief can conflict with someone else's right to equal treatment in a public business.

It was a *privately* owned bakery.

It was a public accommodation business, and as such is supposed to treat everyone equally. Denying service is tantamount to conferring 2nd-class citizenship on somebody, if effect saying I don't consider you equal to anyone else that I consider worthy or service. I can see the baker's argument based on his religious beliefs, the courts might consider that as 'just cause'. But otherwise, to say I don't like you and I ain't going to provide service to you isn't right in my book. Might be legal, depending on the circumstances but it ain't right.

 

[task0778]

You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen.

No, you're assuming second class- I consider it my choice whom to *serve*- choice is the most basic of rights.
If you, or someone else doesn't like the fact "I discriminate" in MY store, you are free to shop elsewhere. In fact, I think it would be a great idea if a sign were posted who *won't* be served. That way the market (consumers) could make the choice vs "we have to do something" making citizens who have committed no harm criminals.

But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights? Maybe you have the best price or the best product or service, but this customer is served but that one isn't, purely based on your personal preference. Not cool with that. I like the idea of a sign though, that says "This establishment reserves the right to deny service to anyone for any or no reason". Not sure your state would accept that as an alternative for equal treatment.

 

[Gdjjr]

I ain't going to provide service to you isn't right in my book.

Forcing someone to submit to your beliefs is immoral- ALL conflicts begin when one forces his will on another- the bakery was "privately" owned operating in a publicly accessed area- their religious beliefs are immaterial- they have the right to turn away business for whatever reason they choose, or don't choose to make public. It is *their* business that they pay servitude to operate in a public space. IF the public (consumers) "choose" to do business elsewhere they will close up shop. It's not the gov't's business and you still haven't provided the enumerated power of gov't to tell people who they can't do business with.

 

[Gdjjr]

But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights?

Nope- they are free to find the same product or service elsewhere- their right to infringe stops at my door- it is my space, not theirs.

 

[task0778]

I ain't going to provide service to you isn't right in my book.

Forcing someone to submit to your beliefs is immoral- ALL conflicts begin when one forces his will on another- the bakery was "privately" owned operating in a publicly accessed area- their religious beliefs are immaterial- they have the right to turn away business for whatever reason they choose, or don't choose to make public. It is *their* business that they pay servitude to operate in a public space. IF the public (consumers) "choose" to do business elsewhere they will close up shop. It's not the gov't's business and you still haven't provided the enumerated power of gov't to tell people who they can't do business with.

The 14th Amendment tells you who you cannot deny doing business with. I think you already know that. As for the govt's business, sure it is. The govt's primary function is to ensure and defend the rights of all citizens, including but not limited to equal treatment (non-discrimination). I think you already know that too.

"they have the right to turn away business for whatever reason they choose, or don't choose to make public". So you want to get rid of the equal protection clause then, right? I do not believe that would be in society's best interests, as divided as we are now such an action would make the situation a lot worse. Fortunately, it ain't going to happen though.

 

[task0778]

But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights?

Nope- they are free to find the same product or service elsewhere- their right to infringe stops at my door- it is my space, not theirs.

"Infringe"? A customer walks into your store expecting to make a purchase, and it's infringing?

 

[Gdjjr]

But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights?

Nope- they are free to find the same product or service elsewhere- their right to infringe stops at my door- it is my space, not theirs.

"Infringe"? A customer walks into your store expecting to make a purchase, and it's infringing?

If I don't want to serve him, yes.

 

[Gdjjr]

The 14th Amendment tells you who you cannot deny doing business with.

Show me the language. Your opinion is just that.

The govt's primary function is to ensure and defend the rights of all citizens,

When the gov't tells a person who he can do business with that isn't doing its duty- it's duty, originally, was to help ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another- siding with one, legally, is opposing another, legally- that's called not doing its proper duty- I'll wait for the language you want to cite.

 

[task0778]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment says this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are some applicable laws in this case, but the big one is The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title II of this laws says:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;


Notice that these laws do not tell you who you can do business with, so you are incorrect about that. What it tells you instead is who you can't deny doing business with. There is no law that helps ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another, so you are incorrect about that too. And these laws are precisely the proper duty of the gov't, to ensure that no person is deprived of equal protection under the laws.


The idea that a customer enters your establishment to purchase goods or services and you decide for whatever reason to deny that person the choice to do business with you is an infringement on you is ridiculous. In fact you are denying that person a choice, therefore it is YOU who is infringing on THEIR liberty.

 

[sparky]

Notice that these laws do not tell you who you can do business with, so you are incorrect about that. What it tells you instead is who you can't deny doing business with.

I believe the case in Q is>

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

the crux being>

.In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

some of the individual justice's dissertations go off into the ozone over this...

There is no law that helps ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another, so you are incorrect about that too

au contaire senior task

Lobbyists legislate legal leverage on a daily basis in Congress , said quid pro quo isn't quite the penchant of shallow pocketed small biz owners (yours truly) who can't fight back....

look no further than the acquisitional monopolization of American biz for proof of this

And these laws are precisely the proper duty of the gov't, to ensure that no person is deprived of equal protection under the laws.

which is where the specter of corporate personhood rears it's ugly head ,having certain advantages (campaign finance) ,yet dodging personal ethics we're all INDIVIDUALLY held to

But i digress, I've been a spark in biz for myself now for decades. My state was the 1st to institute civil unions, we were literally flooded with well heeled gay couples (pun intended) looking to gain residence for said advantage.

I was more than happy to take their $$$ , don't think i'm going to h*ll for it

And i've refused many many sorts, usually because they're A**HOLES, which is by far and large wAAaaay more satisfying face to face

~S~

 

[Gdjjr]

Notice that these laws do not tell you who you can do business with, so you are incorrect about that.

I don't recall saying that- I believe I said IF-

What it tells you instead is who you can't deny doing business with.

Exactly. That is denying me a right to choose. It is forcing me to do business with whom I choose not to.That is infringing on my right to choose. It is "my" commerce and trade. It is not others to demand who I serve. It, like many laws, are over reaching the power enumerated-

There is no law that helps ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another, so you are incorrect about that too.

I didn't say there was a law- I said "originally" that was their duty to NOT make laws that gave legal advantage to one over another and help ensure ALL who had the resources to participate *could*- that was part of the intent of representation in Commerce and Trade-

And these laws are precisely the proper duty of the gov't, to ensure that no person is deprived of equal protection under the laws

You haven't shown (or cited) the "law" that says I have to serve someone I don't want to (I don't want to being key) - the Civil Rights Act has specificity as to who can't be discriminated against. It says nothing about who I can't serve based on my choice, as long as my "choice" meets some specific approval rating, so yes it is infringing on my right of "choosing" when I am *forced* to serve someone I don't want to serve- like the signs say: No shoes or shirts no service.

To add insult to injury- forcing ones will on another, by any means, is immoral and these citations show that law and morals rarely meet- ALL conflict begins when one forces his will on another. That many don't like, or appreciate, Liberty speaks to another over reaching by gov't- mandated education- another forcing of something not an enumerated power- the results being, as have been shown in this thread, are anti-Liberty beliefs which is contrary to the founding principles and leading to an intentional dividing of citizens (tools or enemies) which is the summary of what this boils down to- buying votes.

 

[Gdjjr]

This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.

 

[danielpalos]

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

The Militia of the United States is clearly defined.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized.

Good God!!! What in the Hell, danielpalos? Are you going to destroy this thread too after I asked you politely not to? I have set you straight on this so many times that it makes me want to scream it out. It has been asked and answered.

I quoted Alexander Hamilton for you. The well regulated part has been addressed by the founders / framers. Since you can't understand plain English, let's do it again one at a time:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Composition of the militia is the body of the people. In the statute you cite, it defines what the unorganized militia is. There is NO requirement that the unorganized militia become organized. The Second Amendment refutes your position that a militia is unnecessary, so take that up with your federal legislators and leave me alone. And, insofar as how to best regulate the militia, let the founders respond:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

So, if you want to help fulfill the objective of having the youth properly trained (think well regulated), start thinking about lobbying your state to teach firearms use, safety, and marksmanship in the public school curriculum.

I cited express code and the debated understanding of the common law for the common defense.

However, it is your thread. Bye.

 

[task0778]

This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.

Do you propose eliminating the Equal Protections Clause in it's entirety, and all other non-discrimination laws? I.E., no gov't control at all over discriminatory practices? Would you remove gov't intervention in every aspect of our economy? Maybe even in every aspect of our daily lives? Here's your chance, what is your better way?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

The Militia of the United States is clearly defined.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized.

Good God!!! What in the Hell, danielpalos? Are you going to destroy this thread too after I asked you politely not to? I have set you straight on this so many times that it makes me want to scream it out. It has been asked and answered.

I quoted Alexander Hamilton for you. The well regulated part has been addressed by the founders / framers. Since you can't understand plain English, let's do it again one at a time:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Composition of the militia is the body of the people. In the statute you cite, it defines what the unorganized militia is. There is NO requirement that the unorganized militia become organized. The Second Amendment refutes your position that a militia is unnecessary, so take that up with your federal legislators and leave me alone. And, insofar as how to best regulate the militia, let the founders respond:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

So, if you want to help fulfill the objective of having the youth properly trained (think well regulated), start thinking about lobbying your state to teach firearms use, safety, and marksmanship in the public school curriculum.

I cited express code and the debated understanding of the common law for the common defense.

However, it is your thread. Bye.

You did no such thing.

 

[sparky]

This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.

Spot on

and while i'm no historian , i'd wager the slide into fascism easy to find

~S~

 

[Gdjjr]

This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.

Do you propose eliminating the Equal Protections Clause in it's entirety, and all other non-discrimination laws? I.E., no gov't control at all over discriminatory practices? Would you remove gov't intervention in every aspect of our economy? Maybe even in every aspect of our daily lives? Here's your chance, what is your better way?

Leave people to their own devices, as intended, with laws to punish harming of others, which would include buying votes with laws that discriminate against Liberty.