SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[RKMBrown]

If your religion is against selling products to the public.. then don't. The PA laws allow you to sell privately. Duh!

That's like saying that if you want to have sex with one person, you must have sex with everyone, consent be damned!

No. Unless you are selling sex... selling cake to the public is not like having sex.

Labor and sex are both acts of the individual.

And so is taking a shit and murder. Some acts are not the same as other acts.

You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered.

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, *******, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Unless you are selling sex... selling cake to the public is not like having sex.

Ok lets go with that. So if a prostitute sells sex to one man, she must sell her body to all men? By becoming a prostitute withdraws consent to decide who to have sex with? By your very standard you are supporting legalized rape.

LOL....you are really going off the deep end.

You think that baking cakes is the same as prostitution.

They are both acts of labor and an extension of the individual. Your argument isn't philosophically consistent. You can't say a prostitute on one hand has the right to refuse service to a customer but that a baker doesn't.

As I said to Saint- if the prostitutes employer insisted(as they would) that she service someone regardless of whether she wanted to or not- would that make them rapists?

And if so- would that make Bakers who tell their employees that they must service all customers- rapists also?

If she signed a contract in which it stipulated she could not discriminate which clients she provided sexual services based on race or religion or whatever, than no, it would not be rape in the case of the jewish customer. However, if that was no stipulated in the employment contract, or the prostitute was an independent contractor and the state mandated that the business or herself discriminate against any customer, than yes, it would be rape, because their consent would be nullified.

Rape by definition is perpetrating a forced sexual act upon a person without their consent.

Same applies for the employees of the bakery. Depends on the terms of the contract between the employer and the employee. If the contract stipulates that employment and payment is contingent upon the employee providing services for whoever the employer says, and the employee signs it, than no, it is not "rape". However, if the owner is forced by the state to provide baking services to an individual against their will, thus nullifying their consent, and violating the principle of self ownership. Just as rape violates the principle of self ownership and nullifies the consent of the individual being raped.

So stop distracting from the question at hand. If a baker cannot refuse service to an individual, how can a prostitute refuse sexual services to an individual?

THE BAKER CAN REFUSE TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC... HE DOES SO BY NOT SELLING TO THE PUBLIC AND INSTEAD SELLING PRIVATELY. FURTHER THE BAKER CAN GO ON VACATION OR JUST NOT EFFING SELL CAKES AT ALL OR NEVER EVEN SELL DIRECTLY AT ALL.

 

[Steinlight]

That's like saying that if you want to have sex with one person, you must have sex with everyone, consent be damned!

No. Unless you are selling sex... selling cake to the public is not like having sex.

Labor and sex are both acts of the individual.

And so is taking a shit and murder. Some acts are not the same as other acts.

You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered.

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, *******, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Unless you are selling sex... selling cake to the public is not like having sex.

Labor and sex are both acts of the individual.

And so is taking a shit and murder. Some acts are not the same as other acts.

You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered.

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, *******, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

 

[Steinlight]

Ok lets go with that. So if a prostitute sells sex to one man, she must sell her body to all men? By becoming a prostitute withdraws consent to decide who to have sex with? By your very standard you are supporting legalized rape.

LOL....you are really going off the deep end.

You think that baking cakes is the same as prostitution.

They are both acts of labor and an extension of the individual. Your argument isn't philosophically consistent. You can't say a prostitute on one hand has the right to refuse service to a customer but that a baker doesn't.

As I said to Saint- if the prostitutes employer insisted(as they would) that she service someone regardless of whether she wanted to or not- would that make them rapists?

And if so- would that make Bakers who tell their employees that they must service all customers- rapists also?

If she signed a contract in which it stipulated she could not discriminate which clients she provided sexual services based on race or religion or whatever, than no, it would not be rape in the case of the jewish customer. However, if that was no stipulated in the employment contract, or the prostitute was an independent contractor and the state mandated that the business or herself discriminate against any customer, than yes, it would be rape, because their consent would be nullified.

Rape by definition is perpetrating a forced sexual act upon a person without their consent.

Same applies for the employees of the bakery. Depends on the terms of the contract between the employer and the employee. If the contract stipulates that employment and payment is contingent upon the employee providing services for whoever the employer says, and the employee signs it, than no, it is not "rape". However, if the owner is forced by the state to provide baking services to an individual against their will, thus nullifying their consent, and violating the principle of self ownership. Just as rape violates the principle of self ownership and nullifies the consent of the individual being raped.

So stop distracting from the question at hand. If a baker cannot refuse service to an individual, how can a prostitute refuse sexual services to an individual?

THE BAKER CAN REFUSE TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC... HE DOES SO BY NOT SELLING TO THE PUBLIC AND INSTEAD SELLING PRIVATELY. FURTHER THE BAKER CAN GO ON VACATION OR JUST NOT EFFING SELL CAKES AT ALL OR NEVER EVEN SELL DIRECTLY AT ALL.

Typing in caps doesn't make your philosophy any less inconsistent. Calm down.

 

[Steinlight]

Labor and sex are both acts of the individual.

And so is taking a shit and murder. Some acts are not the same as other acts.

You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered.

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, *******, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

 

[RKMBrown]

And so is taking a shit and murder. Some acts are not the same as other acts.

You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered.

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, *******, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

 

[Steinlight]

You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered.

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, *******, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

I don't think giving a child alcohol is legal in your own house, and I would strongly oppose one abusing their child in this manner. A child does not have the agency to consent to drinking such substances and the adult should be prosecuted accordingly.

 

[Skylar]

Not if they pay you. It's a ******* cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC ******* DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

 

[Steinlight]

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal. In your scenario her consent is effectively nullified. Your train of logic would allowed for legalized rape.

Sorry, but in a free society, you don't magically stop owning yourself once you offer services to "the public". It is an arbitrary delineation. What does "the public" even mean?

 

[Skylar]

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

 

[Steinlight]

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

 

[Steinlight]

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

 

[Skylar]

Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of '**** or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

 

[Steinlight]

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of '**** or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Either you are obtuse or deliberately dishonest. I never said there would be no rule of law, or as you but it "regulation". Laws would exist to protect self ownership. Just because I oppose laws that violate the principle of self-ownership, does not mean I support "no regulations". Fraud, theft, murder, and rape all violate the self ownership principle and would be illegal in any free society.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

There are only two options. Either she can use her body as she wishes, or she can't. In the second option the the self ownership principle is violated because the State either prevents her from engaging in prostitution or forces her to service all individuals, lest she be "discriminatory". In both options of the State violates the self-ownership principle and the second option allows for a legal form of rape.

 

[Steinlight]

That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal.

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of '**** or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your system is an authoritarian nightmare. Bake or go to jail, **** or go to jail. You are piece of shit and a control freak. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a society governed by your arbitrary laws and will fight to maximize liberty where I can.

 

[Skylar]

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of '**** or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement nor characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

 

[Skylar]

No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public.

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of '**** or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your system is an authoritarian nightmare. Bake or go to jail, **** or go to jail. You are piece of shit and a control freak. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a society governed by your arbitrary laws and will fight to maximize liberty where I can.

You're taking hyperbole to a degree of panty shitting hysterics that requires a fainting couch and smelling salts for the 'vapors'. As you're equating any form of regulation as an 'authoritarian nightmare' and 'legalized rape'. Despite such regulation existing and being part of our system of laws since their inception, with the power to regulate commerce being an implicit power of the State under our constitution.

Our constitution is not an 'authoritarian nightmare'. Nor is any form of regulation 'legalized rape'. You're simply overreacting and taking an already melodramatically extreme argument to further, more silly extremes.

And if you don't want to live in a society that regulates commerce......there's Somalia. And that's about it.

 

[Steinlight]

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of '**** or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement or characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be ******* fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

You are doing it again, you claim there is "no regulation" in my system that protects self-ownership when you actually quote the things the law would be set out to protect(ie. murder, rape, theft, fraud etc). Once again, a deliberately dishonest characterization of my position and an appeal to emotion by saying anything outside your arbitrarily and heavy handed system is "anarchy".

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.


Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, not only do you mischaracterize my system as never existing, and self-ownership as "made up", you use it to avoid the fact that your system is philosophically inconsistent. And to avoid talking about how your system must allow for a legal form of rape in the name of "anti-discrimination" and "public accommodation".