Quote:we can't discuss religion here why do you keep bringing it up?
no for government to decide, bad religions, bad organizations, they are for people to chose to avoid not government to legislate away.
Tough not to in this debate.
Still have had no one answer this. If your religion was that you don't want to serve black people, should that be allowed?
Quote:There should be no "discrimination laws" there's no authority for it.
No authority? Please elaborate.
Quote:Tough not to in this debate.
Still have had no one answer this. If your religion was that you don't want to serve black people, should that be allowed?
first that would never be my religion. But I think your asking if that religion should be allowed, the question is on what grounds shouldn't ANY religion or belief system not be allowed?
So long as they're not teaching kill black people it's the own right to be stupid and discriminate, do we want a society that looks to legislate away all injustices? Where would you draw the line?
Islam teaches only Muslims can enter their temples, that's discrimination against Jews and Christians, should we then outlaw Islam?
Quote:No authority? Please elaborate.
There's no constitutional authority to dictate what private business or organizations code of conduct is. If a car wash wants to service only white or black people that's their own decision right or wrong, no where in the constitution is any foundation laid to give any level of authority for the state to dictate other wise. Now you can say we wont allow your business access to public roads, public financing and so on, but you can't say you must do serve these people for this reason because we tell you to and still call it a free market.
Quote:first that would never be my religion. But I think your asking if that religion should be allowed, the question is on what grounds shouldn't ANY religion or belief system not be allowed?
So long as they're not teaching kill black people it's the own right to be stupid and discriminate, do we want a society that looks to legislate away all injustices? Where would you draw the line?
Islam teaches only Muslims can enter their temples, that's discrimination against Jews and Christians, should we then outlaw Islam?
There's no constitutional authority to dictate what private business or organizations code of conduct is. If a car wash wants to service only white or black people that's their own decision right or wrong, no where in the constitution is any foundation laid to give any level of authority for the state to dictate other wise. Now you can say we wont allow your business access to public roads, public financing and so on, but you can't say you must do serve these people for this reason because we tell you to and still call it a free market.
Business and church are two different things. So again, you are okay with businesses not allowing black people in their restaurant? You kind of dodged the question. Yes or no? And is that really they type of society we want to live in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_...nstitution
Free market? We consider ourselves free yet we get arrested for doing drugs. If you think you are free then you are believing an illusion. We give up freedoms to enjoy what we enjoy in the US. Some good, some bad.
Quote:Business and church are two different things. So again, you are okay with businesses not allowing black people in their restaurant? You kind of dodged the question. Yes or no? And is that really they type of society we want to live in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_...nstitution
Free market? We consider ourselves free yet we get arrested for doing drugs. If you think you are free then you are believing an illusion. We give up freedoms to enjoy what we enjoy in the US. Some good, some bad.
You must not spend a lot of time on this forum, I'm a big proponent of ending all drug prohibitions.
Yes I'm OK with private business discriminating, I wouldn't support them, heck I'd even protest them and I believe they'd go out of business in the long run. But if a business owner with his own money wants to open a store for only white people or black people or whatever that's HIS business not mine, not yours, not the governments.
Liberty and Freedom of choice isn't something you can apply here and not there, either we are free to let people make bad decisions, make mistakes, fail and be their own masters or we are not.
It's the giving up freedoms I oppose, Liberty even when I disagree with what people do with it.
Quote:You must not spend a lot of time on this forum, I'm a big proponent of ending all drug prohibitions.
Yes I'm OK with private business discriminating, I wouldn't support them, heck I'd even protest them and I believe they'd go out of business in the long run. But if a business owner with his own money wants to open a store for only white people or black people or whatever that's HIS business not mine, not yours, not the governments.
Liberty and Freedom of choice isn't something you can apply here and not there, either we are free to let people make bad decisions, make mistakes, fail and be their own masters or we are not.
It's the giving up freedoms I oppose, Liberty even when I disagree with what people do with it.
There ya go. Simple question and finally an answer.
We aren't free. There is also a price to be paid for having complete freedom. Freedom to drink and drive? Freedom to kill someone if you want? Where does your freedom end?
BTW, they seem to have authority. Not sure where you are getting that. Is this like paying taxes thing? They don't have the authority to tax me! Except they do.
Quote:There ya go. Simple question and finally an answer.
We aren't free. There is also a price to be paid for having complete freedom. Freedom to drink and drive? Freedom to kill someone if you want? Where does your freedom end?
I've said it a thousand times at least 3 times in this conversation your freedom to do as you will ends when it involves harming someone else.
Quote:I've said it a thousand times at least 3 times in this conversation your freedom to do as you will ends when it involves harming someone else.
I didn't see that. So you don't think it harms someone when you don't let them into your restaurant simply because they are black? Can you imagine the psychological effect that has on someone. I think you need to change what you said if harming someone is your threshold. Psychological harm can have as much if not more adverse effects then physical harm.
Quote:I didn't see that. So you don't think it harms someone when you don't let them into your restaurant simply because they are black? Can you imagine the psychological effect that has on someone. I think you need to change what you said if harming someone is your threshold. Psychological harm can have as much if not more adverse effects then physical harm.
Fine physical harm, but we're splitting hairs now.
Quote:Fine physical harm, but we're splitting hairs now.
Man, you may want to start your own government. As I mentioned, psychological harm can be as bad if not worse then physical harm. If that is the case, then why would you only limit it to physical harm?
Quote:Man, you may want to start your own government. As I mentioned, psychological harm can be as bad if not worse then physical harm. If that is the case, then why would you only limit it to physical harm?
Because I believe in a government that protects the right to life and personal property. When someone is physically causing another harm they've violated the others right to life and personal property. That's governments role to protect life and property.
If you want include psychological harm that's how we end up with this over bearing big brother government restricting what you can say, where you can say it, how you can say it and who you can say it to. What you think, what you believe it all comes under question.
Stupid people will always have stupid thoughts, bad people will always have bad thoughts and say mean things, to try and legislate that away only restricts individual liberty.
Quote:Because I believe in a government that protects the right to life and personal property. When someone is physically causing another harm they've violated the others right to life and personal property. That's governments role to protect life and property.
If you want include psychological harm that's how we end up with this over bearing big brother government restricting what you can say, where you can say it, how you can say it and who you can say it to. What you think, what you believe it all comes under question.
Stupid people will always have stupid thoughts, bad people will always have bad thoughts and say mean things, to try and legislate that away only restricts individual liberty.
But you aren't giving freedom to those who disagree with you. Once you say I want freedom except... then you are opening the door to other exceptions and that is how we have gotten to where we are. So government only role is to protect life and property? Haven't seen that government before.
Quote:But you aren't giving freedom to those who disagree with you. Once you say I want freedom except... then you are opening the door to other exceptions and that is how we have gotten to where we are. So government only role is to protect life and property? Haven't seen that government before.
sure I am, so long as they don't harm others. I don't agree with homosexuality but I support same sex marriage. I don't agree with the use of narcotics but support ending narcotic prohibition. I don't agree with prostitution, but support ending laws about sex for profit.
Life and property is the core of governments role, all the authority given to government in the constitution is an extension of the protection of it's citizens life and property (be it physical property, intellectual property, personal property and so on). That was the core foundation of our nation, over the years it's been extended and grown to become much more then that, but at it's core government is only supposed to protect life and property.
Quote:sure I am, so long as they don't harm others. I don't agree with homosexuality but I support same sex marriage. I don't agree with the use of narcotics but support ending narcotic prohibition. I don't agree with prostitution, but support ending laws about sex for profit.
Life and property is the core of governments role, all the authority given to government in the constitution is an extension of the protection of it's citizens life and property (be it physical property, intellectual property, personal property and so on). That was the core foundation of our nation, over the years it's been extended and grown to become much more then that, but at it's core government is only supposed to protect life and property.
But you are making a law and one that doesn't allow everyone to be free. If you make one law then there will be more that follow. It isn't as simple as you seem to be making it. Extremely complicated with all kinds of negative ramifications with what you are wanting.
So does freedom mean we should be allowed to own any weapon we want? You making laws for that to? Is your only law you can't harm others? What about drinking and driving? Technically you may not hurt anyone by doing so. Is that a law to?
Quote:But you are making a law and one that doesn't allow everyone to be free. If you make one law then there will be more that follow. It isn't as simple as you seem to be making it. Extremely complicated with all kinds of negative ramifications with what you are wanting.
So does freedom mean we should be allowed to own any weapon we want? You making laws for that to? Is your only law you can't harm others? What about drinking and driving? Technically you may not hurt anyone by doing so. Is that a law to?
Sure you can own any weapon, I believe in a populace that's armed better than it's government. Government should ALWAYS be in fear of it's people.
Drinking and Driving, Public Intoxication, Nudity (another popular one people through out there) those are all up to local individual communities. Maybe Montana doesn't think it's necessary to police DUI, you're more likely to hit a tree and kill yourself then someone else it's so rural. But a place like Jacksonville would see the need to restrict DUI's.
Also roads are often built with public funds, so it's reasonable to have restrictions on who can and can't operate a vehicle on those roads. For example age restrictions, intoxication restrictions, that all falls under the reasonable protection of property of others using the public road.
Federal legislation is not the only way to govern. Individual communities are free to make agreements among themselves. You might even have some communities that say we only want ____ people with ____ income living here so what, some will fail some will thrive and life goes on.
Quote:Sure you can own any weapon, I believe in a populace that's armed better than it's government. Government should ALWAYS be in fear of it's people.
Drinking and Driving, Public Intoxication, Nudity (another popular one people through out there) those are all up to local individual communities. Maybe Montana doesn't think it's necessary to police DUI, you're more likely to hit a tree and kill yourself then someone else it's so rural. But a place like Jacksonville would see the need to restrict DUI's.
Also roads are often built with public funds, so it's reasonable to have restrictions on who can and can't operate a vehicle on those roads. For example age restrictions, intoxication restrictions, that all falls under the reasonable protection of property of others using the public road.
Federal legislation is not the only way to govern. Individual communities are free to make agreements among themselves. You might even have some communities that say we only want ____ people with ____ income living here so what, some will fail some will thrive and life goes on.
But that isn't freedom. You are restricting my freedom. So I can own say a bomb? Or rocket launcher? Any weapon I want?
Quote:But that isn't freedom. You are restricting my freedom. So I can own say a bomb? Or rocket launcher? Any weapon I want?
Sure you can own any weapon you want, so can your neighbor and everyone else.
You think people don't own bombs because it's "illegal"? Do you have any idea the lengths you have to go through to properly store a bomb so it doesn't blow your garage up? Or how expensive the materials you would need to create one is? What purpose would the average citizen have with a rocket launcher, but hey if they wanted to purchase one and had the financial means you think laws are going to change that?
The lack of federal legislation doesn't equate to all common sense going out the window or anarchy as your trying to imply. Laws against bombs didn't stop Boston Marathon from happening or Oklahoma City.
Quote:If you run a business in the US there are laws you have to follow. One is not discriminating against a group of people. Doesn't god love all people? Just seems so hypocritical.
I would answer this but would break the COC in doing so. I believe the mods have given much leeway so far and I don't want to push it.
Eric was right in that discrimination is not illegal, it happens more often than not. That's not my point, but it is true.
Quote:Sure you can own any weapon you want, so can your neighbor and everyone else.
You think people don't own bombs because it's "illegal"? Do you have any idea the lengths you have to go through to properly store a bomb so it doesn't blow your garage up? Or how expensive the materials you would need to create one is? What purpose would the average citizen have with a rocket launcher, but hey if they wanted to purchase one and had the financial means you think laws are going to change that?
The lack of federal legislation doesn't equate to all common sense going out the window or anarchy as your trying to imply. Laws against bombs didn't stop Boston Marathon from happening or Oklahoma City.
I think laws certainly keep the numbers down. People still drink and drive, but the numbers are significantly down since they had stiffer punishments and cracked down. Making it illegal won't keep it away from everyone, but it keeps it away from most. In your world, it would not.
Quote:I would answer this but would break the COC in doing so. I believe the mods have given much leeway so far and I don't want to push it.
Eric was right in that discrimination is not illegal, it happens more often than not. That's not my point, but it is true.
Feel free to personally message me and you can say whatever you want.
Parts of discrimination are illegal. You can't turn someone away because of the color of their skin. I have laws that I can't discriminate as a Realtor. I could lose my license if I did so.