So here's a question to ponder. A very conservative friend of mine told me recently other people's rights end where hers begins. How does that work? How does the rights of one person end where the rights of someone else begins? I have been trying to work this out in my head, and maybe it's the allergy meds that make me spacey, but I don't get it.
And please, no disparaging remarks. I'm truly curious how this works.
It's hard to really answer the question without expanding on the subject. What rights in particular are we talking about? As a hypothetical, say your friend has a business. Is she saying that she has the right to refuse to do business with someone else?
Hard to understand without your friends point, but my wife the lawyer often uses this phrase so I will give you a generic example and perhaps it can be applied to your situation.
Generic example: In America you have a right to be racist against black people. You can't go to jail just for being racist. However, your right to be racist does not allow you the right to deny a black person service at your restaurant because they are black. I.e. Your rights to be racist do not allow you to deny a person their civil rights.
Another example: You have a right to vocally oppose gay marriage or gun ownership. However, your right to oppose these things does not allow you the right to deny a gay couple a marriage license or EricC85 his new AR-15.
Unfortunately what I see is people thinking this phrase means they don't have to follow the law, which is not what it means.
Quote:Hard to understand without your friends point, but my wife the lawyer often uses this phrase so I will give you a generic example and perhaps it can be applied to your situation.
Generic example: In America you have a right to be racist against black people. You can't go to jail just for being racist. However, your right to be racist does not allow you the right to deny a black person service at your restaurant because they are black. I.e. Your rights to be racist do not allow you to deny a person their civil rights.
Another example: You have a right to vocally oppose gay marriage or gun ownership. However, your right to oppose these things does not allow you the right to deny a gay couple a marriage license or EricC85 his new AR-15.
Unfortunately what I see is people thinking this phrase means they don't have to follow the law, which is not what it means.
LOL, very good way to put it.
Quote:Hard to understand without your friends point, but my wife the lawyer often uses this phrase so I will give you a generic example and perhaps it can be applied to your situation.
Generic example: In America you have a right to be racist against black people. You can't go to jail just for being racist. However, your right to be racist does not allow you the right to deny a black person service at your restaurant because they are black. I.e. Your rights to be racist do not allow you to deny a person their civil rights.
Another example: You have a right to vocally oppose gay marriage or gun ownership. However, your right to oppose these things does not allow you the right to deny a gay couple a marriage license or EricC85 his new AR-15.
Unfortunately what I see is people thinking this phrase means they don't have to follow the law, which is not what it means.
You pretty much answered my question spot on. I didn't have a specific subject or incident in mind, just a general question.
I guess I would say it gets tricky when a restaurant doesn't accept folks who dress a certain way but if you go to a place where you can wear only jacket and tie it's not frowned upon. Or a place that wants to serve adults only. Why do people who have kids get to dictate the clientele of a private business?
Quote:You pretty much answered my question spot on. I didn't have a specific subject or incident in mind, just a general question.
I guess I would say it gets tricky when a restaurant doesn't accept folks who dress a certain way but if you go to a place where you can wear only jacket and tie it's not frowned upon. Or a place that wants to serve adults only. Why do people who have kids get to dictate the clientele of a private business?
This is where it gets tricky. I can't really explain all the various scenarios, because there are too many and because in some cases the law isn't clear. However public funds play a large part in it. That being said, if you want to have a private club that only admits men you can (think of the Masters at Augusta Country Club a few years ago.) It was legal to have a men's only country club because it was a private business. Where they ran into trouble was that the Augusta CC was receiving monies from the city to help put on the Masters (think of the city of Jax working with the Jags,) therefore they were required by law not to discriminate based on sex.
It is even tougher when you talk about smaller private businesses. For examples, retirement communities need to operate through loopholes in the law to create housing that discriminates based on age.
It's all very complicated. I hope my responses help a little. I would be lying if I didn't give my wife some credit too!
Quote:This is where it gets tricky. I can't really explain all the various scenarios, because there are too many and because in some cases the law isn't clear. However public funds play a large part in it. That being said, if you want to have a private club that only admits men you can (think of the Masters at Augusta Country Club a few years ago.) It was legal to have a men's only country club because it was a private business. Where they ran into trouble was that the Augusta CC was receiving monies from the city to help put on the Masters (think of the city of Jax working with the Jags,) therefore they were required by law not to discriminate based on sex.
It is even tougher when you talk about smaller private businesses. For examples, retirement communities need to operate through loopholes in the law to create housing that discriminates based on age.
It's all very complicated. I hope my responses help a little. I would be lying if I didn't give my wife some credit too!
Actually, your post(s) give a lot of insight into the matter.
Everyone has all of their rights until they give them to government and allow them dictate when we can use them and when we can't. The only exclusion that was originally implied was the harm of others. I have the right to say as I please, associate with whom I choose, use my property how I see fit, defend myself and my property as needed, and be assumed inoccent until proven guilty so long as I'm not harming another individual.
We've complicated the issue with discrimination laws, regulations on commerce, prohibition of substances, restrictions of private unions, and registry of firearms. All are examples of peole giving up rights to allow an ultimate authority deciede when you can practice your rights.
Quote:So here's a question to ponder. A very conservative friend of mine told me recently other people's rights end where hers begins. How does that work? How does the rights of one person end where the rights of someone else begins? I have been trying to work this out in my head, and maybe it's the allergy meds that make me spacey, but I don't get it.
And please, no disparaging remarks. I'm truly curious how this works.
I guess she is saying if you commit murder (for taking away a person's right to life) you lose your right to liberty? The moment you take away another person's rights you lose your rights in the process, but it isn't that simple.
If I have a freedom of speech, and I slander your name doesn't that make me lose my right to freedom of speech (not if you are a newspaper, you can't be sued for liable - Trumps argument against New York Times.)
Quote:Actually, your post(s) give a lot of insight into the matter.
They really do!
Quote:Everyone has all of their rights until they give them to government and allow them dictate when we can use them and when we can't. The only exclusion that was originally implied was the harm of others. I have the right to say as I please, associate with whom I choose, use my property how I see fit, defend myself and my property as needed, and be assumed inoccent until proven guilty so long as I'm not harming another individual.
We've complicated the issue with discrimination laws, regulations on commerce, prohibition of substances, restrictions of private unions, and registry of firearms. All are examples of peole giving up rights to allow an ultimate authority deciede when you can practice your rights.
True.
Quote:I guess she is saying if you commit murder (for taking away a person's right to life) you lose your right to liberty? The moment you take away another person's rights you lose your rights in the process, but it isn't that simple.
If I have a freedom of speech, and I slander your name doesn't that make me lose my right to freedom of speech (not if you are a newspaper, you can't be sued for liable - Trumps argument against New York Times.)
I agree with both scenarios posted and those are definitely where the rights of one stops when it infringes on the rights of another.
There are consequences to actions even if we're acting on our rights. A lot of people don't get that.
Quote:Everyone has all of their rights until they give them to government and allow them dictate when we can use them and when we can't. The only exclusion that was originally implied was the harm of others. I have the right to say as I please, associate with whom I choose, use my property how I see fit, defend myself and my property as needed, and be assumed inoccent until proven guilty so long as I'm not harming another individual.
We've complicated the issue with discrimination laws, regulations on commerce, prohibition of substances, restrictions of private unions, and registry of firearms. All are examples of peole giving up rights to allow an ultimate authority deciede when you can practice your rights.
But the right to harm others is also giving up your rights. Once you draw one line more will follow. This is why I have a hard time understanding your pov.
Quote:But the right to harm others is also giving up your rights. Once you draw one line more will follow. This is why I have a hard time understanding your pov.
Where in the constitution or any other document has the write to harm others or destroy property ever been outlined or implied? Since our inception there has never been a just "right to harm others" it was always under the perversion of our founding documents that the harm to others has occurred, for example slavery couldn't stand under our constitution so they decided that slaves where not really people therefor had no rights.
I'm not an anarchist even though i joke I lean towards anarchy, because i recognize there are some legitimate roles to have a government. Those roles are to make sure all individuals a free to exerciser their rights as guaranteed in our constitution.
"Your rights end where mine begin," is a pretty terrifying view to take, imo. I think that we all share that view to a point--and many people share it absolutely without even understanding the implications of it. What if she decides it's her right to unleash a verbal assault on a gay couple in public? When do the couple's rights kick in?
I have a pretty simple philosophy: live and let live. You go about your life as you choose to live it, so long as it's not bringing tangible harm to others, and I'll leave you alone and live mine. A gay couple holding hands or getting married is not harming you, nor is that dude with an important book who's standing on a park bench shouting about how that gay couple is going to condemn all of humanity to a terrible end. I think most of the world's problems could be solved if we'd just learn to mind our own damn business, tbqh.
Quote:Where in the constitution or any other document has the write to harm others or destroy property ever been outlined or implied? Since our inception there has never been a just "right to harm others" it was always under the perversion of our founding documents that the harm to others has occurred, for example slavery couldn't stand under our constitution so they decided that slaves where not really people therefor had no rights.
I'm not an anarchist even though i joke I lean towards anarchy, because i recognize there are some legitimate roles to have a government. Those roles are to make sure all individuals a free to exerciser their rights as guaranteed in our constitution.
But again, once you start drawing lines than more lines will be drawn. What you seek is not possible in a society with 330 million people. You think that is a line that should be drawn. Most would agree. But than someone's going to find something that where most agree, but not as many as the other and another line gets drawn. Then times change and something that no one would even dare consider becomes another line drawn. That's how a society works. What I'm basically saying what you want will never happen because it can't in the society we are in. Maybe that changes as society evolves.
Also, when the Constitution was written, it was a different time. Technology will change society and even eventually our Constitution. It is inevitable.
Quote:"Your rights end where mine begin," is a pretty terrifying view to take, imo. I think that we all share that view to a point--and many people share it absolutely without even understanding the implications of it. What if she decides it's her right to unleash a verbal assault on a gay couple in public? When do the couple's rights kick in?
I have a pretty simple philosophy: live and let live. You go about your life as you choose to live it, so long as it's not bringing tangible harm to others, and I'll leave you alone and live mine. A gay couple holding hands or getting married is not harming you, nor is that dude with an important book who's standing on a park bench shouting about how that gay couple is going to condemn all of humanity to a terrible end. I think most of the world's problems could be solved if we'd just learn to mind our own damn business, tbqh.
Above is a good example. Just look at this message board. Constant state of differing views on just about everything.
the idea is supposed to be your right to swing your first wildly ends at the tip of my nose..
Quote:"Your rights end where mine begin," is a pretty terrifying view to take, imo. I think that we all share that view to a point--and many people share it absolutely without even understanding the implications of it. What if she decides it's her right to unleash a verbal assault on a gay couple in public? When do the couple's rights kick in?
I have a pretty simple philosophy: live and let live. You go about your life as you choose to live it, so long as it's not bringing tangible harm to others, and I'll leave you alone and live mine. A gay couple holding hands or getting married is not harming you, nor is that dude with an important book who's standing on a park bench shouting about how that gay couple is going to condemn all of humanity to a terrible end. I think most of the world's problems could be solved if we'd just learn to mind our own damn business, tbqh.
I've always felt the same about the live and let live. Despite some of my own panty twisting on here about several topics in which Christians are generally against, I've come to the personal conclusion that these are not for me to rage against. I may not agree but if people want to live as they do, then so be it. I don't have to agree. But I don't have to be a shrilling banshee about it either.
That being said, I feel that folks who really feel this way about rights in general and not personal harm or things along those lines....they're probably pretty close-minded and unable to see other people's point of view at all. To be open minded doesn't mean you agree, it just means you are willing to hear the other person out and perhaps just agree to disagree in the end. My friend is very close-minded, sadly. There are two specific subjects I refuse to discuss with her because it causes a great deal of conflict and she will argue it into the ground because they are subjects in which she feels someone's rights end where hers begins. I admire her passion, I just can't agree with her.
I think the message is; you have certain rights, which you are free to exercise as you choose, but not to the extent that your actions infringe on the rights of others. It's important to realize that the extent of your "rights" may vary with circumstances not always readily definable or measurable, which leaves us with the "fair and reasonable" standard.
Suppose we're neighbors in close proximity, but the only two houses in a remote setting. You have the right to mow your lawn and I have the right to take a nap in a hammock in my back yard. The noise of your lawnmower affects my nap, but cannot reasonably be considered an infringement at 3pm on a Saturday. However, mowing your lawn at 3 am, would affect the peace and quiet to which I am reasonably entitled at that time of day. Thus, your right to mow ends when my right to a quieter time begins. If I move out and the house is vacant, your right to mow becomes unrestricted, as it no longer impacts the rights of others.
Quote:Suppose we're neighbors in close proximity, but the only two houses in a remote setting. You have the right to mow your lawn and I have the right to take a nap in a hammock in my back yard. The noise of your lawnmower affects my nap, but cannot reasonably be considered an infringement at 3pm on a Saturday. However, mowing your lawn at 3 am, would affect the peace and quiet to which I am reasonably entitled at that time of day. Thus, your right to mow ends when my right to a quieter time begins. If I move out and the house is vacant, your right to mow becomes unrestricted, as it no longer impacts the rights of others.
I actually think that's a pretty good analogy. I also question the wisdom of anyone who has presumably miles of real estate to choose from and instead builds their house 50 feet from the only neighbor in the county.
