"your individual liberty ends at my nose"

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're correct! You don't understand the entire scope along with the responsibilities of individual freedoms/liberties/rights.

Please, for gawd sakes, ELABORATE.

Read and UNDERSTAND my post #33 to which you responded and see where you wrote, "Maybe I just dont understand "individual liberty"". If you understand what was written before, then there should no problem with you understanding that I agreed with you when you said, "Maybe I just dont understand "individual liberty"". That should be clear enough for the vast majority of folks to understand!

So you cant. ok

No, I did elaborate but you simply refuse to admit your error or that you're not the egalitarian you are now trying to claim you are! In any case, you're conflicted.

You are not acknowledging that one's actions can well impact the individual freedoms/liberties/rights of others directly as well as indirectly. With that being true, your initial assertion about those same individual freedoms/liberties/rights stopping at the end one's nose is a faulty conclusion by denying the full scope of the issue beyond the end of a given nose. Perhaps a subject too esoteric for some to comprehend!

How is one being turned down at someones business depriving them of liberty? I assume that is what you meant by "indirectly"? Perhaps their "feelings"?

Don't deflect from the topic at hand. Try really, really thinking about what I wrote and respond to its content. It all concerns the false premise you presented in the OP! Stay on topic!

 

[Valerie]

Who said it didn't?

it's just this feeeling they get...

 

[Anathema]

then you must have had terrible things happen to you. and for that I am sorry.

Life is what happened to me. Nothing more. Nothing to be sorry about.

 

[Timmy]

Is this an abortion thread?

 

[jillian]

There are bigots of all flavors, stripes and political persuasions out there, and forcing them to do something will only make them bigger bigots.

I'd rather just know who these people are, let them stew in their own misery, and find someone who wants to work with me.

My ego is not such that I have a need to see them punished for being ignorant. They're probably miserable enough, as it is.
.

so we should go back to jim crow?

if you can't do your job legally and without discriminating then you should probably find different work.

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

 

[jillian]

then you must have had terrible things happen to you. and for that I am sorry.

Life is what happened to me. Nothing more. Nothing to be sorry about.

then my life was better... because I don't hate anyone.

I hope you find happy

 

[TNHarley]

Is this an abortion thread?

This thread is about liberty. Do you think abortion falls under that category?

 

[Contumacious]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

 

[TNHarley]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

The COTUS has been shit on since Adams

 

[jillian]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

according to whom? not the Court, that's for sure.

but pretend you know more than constitutional scholars.

 

[Contumacious]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

according to whom? not the Court, that's for sure.

but pretend you know more than constitutional scholars.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.


I see , so the Honorable James Clark McReynolds was not a Constitutional scholar?


.

 

[jillian]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

according to whom? not the Court, that's for sure.

but pretend you know more than constitutional scholars.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.


I see , so the Honorable James Clark McReynolds was not a Constitutional scholar?


.

the minority opinion of a judge isn't law.

as I said... the COURT held otherwise. but then again, they also ruled heller is the law. I think they got that one wrong. it doesn't mean it isn't the law. and I can't say it's "anti-constitutional" because if the Court holds it constitutional then, by definition, it is.

I realize that's beyond your understanding.

 

[Mac1958]

There are bigots of all flavors, stripes and political persuasions out there, and forcing them to do something will only make them bigger bigots.

I'd rather just know who these people are, let them stew in their own misery, and find someone who wants to work with me.

My ego is not such that I have a need to see them punished for being ignorant. They're probably miserable enough, as it is.
.

so we should go back to jim crow?

if you can't do your job legally and without discriminating then you should probably find different work.

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

 

[Contumacious]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

according to whom? not the Court, that's for sure.

but pretend you know more than constitutional scholars.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.


I see , so the Honorable James Clark McReynolds was not a Constitutional scholar?


.

the minority opinion of a judge isn't law.

as I said... the COURT held otherwise. but then again, they also ruled heller is the law. I think they got that one wrong. it doesn't mean it isn't the law. and I can't say it's "anti-constitutional" because if the Court holds it constitutional then, by definition, it is.

I realize that's beyond your understanding.

Here in these US of A the people are the guardians of the Constitution.

The Constitution protects individual rights, Capitalism and Free enterprise

If we enter into a contract wherein the currency to be used is gold then Congress has no authority whatsoever to interfere with the contract and demand that I accept paper or some other currency

A freeman has the right to defend his life using a firearm

I realize that's beyond your government supremacy understanding but that's the way it is,

The Constitution, sadly, ended in 1935 now we are on our own.


.

 

[jillian]

There are bigots of all flavors, stripes and political persuasions out there, and forcing them to do something will only make them bigger bigots.

I'd rather just know who these people are, let them stew in their own misery, and find someone who wants to work with me.

My ego is not such that I have a need to see them punished for being ignorant. They're probably miserable enough, as it is.
.

so we should go back to jim crow?

if you can't do your job legally and without discriminating then you should probably find different work.

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

 

[Mac1958]

There are bigots of all flavors, stripes and political persuasions out there, and forcing them to do something will only make them bigger bigots.

I'd rather just know who these people are, let them stew in their own misery, and find someone who wants to work with me.

My ego is not such that I have a need to see them punished for being ignorant. They're probably miserable enough, as it is.
.

so we should go back to jim crow?

if you can't do your job legally and without discriminating then you should probably find different work.

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

 

[jillian]

so we should go back to jim crow?

if you can't do your job legally and without discriminating then you should probably find different work.

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

 

[bodecea]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

according to whom? not the Court, that's for sure.

but pretend you know more than constitutional scholars.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.


I see , so the Honorable James Clark McReynolds was not a Constitutional scholar?


.

One guy....one bitter guy. No wonder you keep bringing him up. Birds of a feather.

 

[TNHarley]

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

Beating your wife on the courthouse steps on sunday is legal in TN, but nobody does it. JS

 

[bodecea]

then why doesn't yours end at mine?

Not under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


So under FDR's constitution whether or not you have an individual privilege depends on the congresscritters , executive discretion or 5-4 majorities in the so-called SCOTUS


Under fascism you do not have rights - you are allowed privileges out of the goodness of their hearts.


.

It was the GOP who admired Mussolini.