Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bripat9643]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

Sorry, but it just isn't. It may be an asshole thing to do, especially when it involves little risk or cost to you, but it's not harming someone.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I really have to agree with Mr(s?) Lake. It's kind of making us look bad at this point.

 

[bripat9643]

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.

You didn't prove me wrong. I fail to even understand what "pro-gay" means. Libertarians believe in equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation. However, that still doesn't mean they believe you have a right to force businesses to serve you. You're reading things into the party platform that just aren't there.

 

[lake avenue]

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.

You didn't prove me wrong. I fail to even understand what "pro-gay" means. Libertarians believe in equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation. However, that still doesn't mean they believe you have a right to force businesses to serve you. You're reading things into the party platform that just aren't there.

Your avatar is actually just a picture of you, isn't it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

Sorry, but it just isn't. It may be an asshole thing to do, especially when it involves little risk or cost to you, but it's not harming someone.

Active versus Passive.

Active harm, I hit you with my car.
Passive harm, I don't come to your aid after you were hit by a car. Both are harmful.

And in Bripat's "morality", he'd only come to your aid if he personally benefited.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.

You didn't prove me wrong. I fail to even understand what "pro-gay" means. Libertarians believe in equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation. However, that still doesn't mean they believe you have a right to force businesses to serve you. You're reading things into the party platform that just aren't there.

Your avatar is actually just a picture of you, isn't it?

Use ad-blocker. I can't stand avatars or signatures.

 

[bripat9643]

Where do they say they endorse forcing businesses to serve queers?

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.

Actually, the original issue is whether libertarians support laws to force businesses to server gay people. Then you tried to claim that libertarians are "pro-gay." You haven't proven a thing aside from the fact that you're a sore loser who has temper tantrums when he's prove wrong.

 

[Votto]

"Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?"

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

So how should the IRS be punished?

 

[lake avenue]

It doesn't; it says that they're pro-gay. Just like you said they weren't. I don't agree with the libertarian party on all of their issues; however, once again, you're directing the point of the conversation to me, for some reason. I know I'm a very interesting person, but you don't have to make the conversation about me.

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.

Actually, the original issue is whether libertarians support laws to force businesses to server gay people. Then you tried to claim that libertarians are "pro-gay." You haven't proven a thing aside from the fact that you're a sore loser who has temper tantrums when he's prove wrong.

I've proven they're pro-gay several times, you're just ignoring everything I post. It's okay, we all have problems reading sometimes. I know this may be an issue for you, and it's okay. We can work through it together.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You didn't prove me wrong. I fail to even understand what "pro-gay" means. Libertarians believe in equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation. However, that still doesn't mean they believe you have a right to force businesses to serve you. You're reading things into the party platform that just aren't there.

He did though. He showed you the official Libertarian Party policy on it. Multiple times. "Libertarians recognize that government should have no role in deciding which lifestyles are acceptable." That's a direct quote from their website. You ignored it and changed the question up. To answer the new one, "pro-gay" is exactly what it says on the tin. It's support for the inherent and inalienable right of gay people to live with, date, fuck, and marry any freely consenting and mentally stable adult they choose without this right being fucked with. We both don't want the state to interfere with business owners' lives just because they have moral qualms with homosexuality. It would be hypocritical to deny gay people the same protections against harassment or interference by the state just because they're gay.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. It doesn't say they are pro-gay. Please quote the material where you think it does.

Since you addressed your post to me, why wouldn't I "direct the point of the conversation to you?"

"The real agenda of the ReCons is homosexuality. They want to use force to wipe out gay marriage. If they achieve this, they will feel they have achieved their goal.

There are some unfortunate reasons why the issue of gay marriage matters. Our tax code and welfare programs are based upon a person's marital status. Therefore, government is making decisions about what should be considered a legal marriage. It shouldn't have to. Before the income tax and welfare state, our founding fathers did not have marriage licenses. George Washington never had to get approval from any government bureaucrat to marry Martha.

I have warned previously that social conservatives now control us. I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian. Let ReCons flee the Libertarian Party. For those who are peaceful and want liberty, whether gay or straight, welcome."

Where does it say libertarians support laws the force businesses to serve gays?

You started this argument on the basis that libertarians are neither pro not anti gay. I proved you wrong, now you're asking a different question as if it was the point of this libertarian rant you've been on this entire time. Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your desire to be right is so strong it's ridiculous.

Actually, the original issue is whether libertarians support laws to force businesses to server gay people. Then you tried to claim that libertarians are "pro-gay." You haven't proven a thing aside from the fact that you're a sore loser who has temper tantrums when he's prove wrong.

I've proven they're pro-gay several times, you're just ignoring everything I post. It's okay, we all have problems reading sometimes. I know this may be an issue for you, and it's okay. We can work through it together.

No, you haven't. You've only proven they are not anti-gay. They are neutral on the gay issue because being gay isn't an issue to libertarians. in there view whether your gay or not should not even be mentioned by any law.

 

[dblack]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

How would you characterize when it is, and when it's not?

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't prove me wrong. I fail to even understand what "pro-gay" means. Libertarians believe in equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation. However, that still doesn't mean they believe you have a right to force businesses to serve you. You're reading things into the party platform that just aren't there.

He did though. He showed you the official Libertarian Party policy on it. Multiple times. "Libertarians recognize that government should have no role in deciding which lifestyles are acceptable." That's a direct quote from their website. You ignored it and changed the question up. To answer the new one, "pro-gay" is exactly what it says on the tin. It's support for the inherent and inalienable right of gay people to live with, date, fuck, and marry any freely consenting and mentally stable adult they choose without this right being fucked with. We both don't want the state to interfere with business owners' lives just because they have moral qualms with homosexuality. It would be hypocritical to deny gay people the same protections against harassment or interference by the state just because they're gay.

Whether they are pro-gay is a side issue that he brought into the original discussion about whether libertarians support forcing businesses to serve gay people. You can call the quoted material "pro-gay," but I just call it neutral.

 

[percysunshine]

But it does fall under your freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of self-determination. Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them. Unless a previous commitment is being violated, I don't see how not helping someone can be construed as harming them. By that reasoning, we all walk around harming people every day.

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.

Declining to serve them isn't "acting against them."

Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.

Mmmm . . . . no. it protects your right not to interact with them in any way.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

What is all this 'your' stuff?

Are you British or something?

.

 

[lake avenue]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.
Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.
American's don't have a right to self-determination, but even if they did that would be strange considering self-determination refers to a nation determining it's own statehood.

And the Ninth amendment specifies that our rights are not limited to those cited in the Constitution. But you rightly point out that none of these rights empower a person to harm others. Which brings us to my last point, which you didn't get to. Do you really consider not helping someone the same as harming them?

I'd like to come back to this, because I think it's central to the topic, and frankly a lot of the other legal issues we face. And I'd like to open the question up to anyone else reading along. Is failing to help someone the same as harming them?

I think that's good question. I think in some instances it is but in others it's not.

How would you characterize when it is, and when it's not?

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

 

[lake avenue]

Freedom of conscience protects your right to your own thoughts, your own religion, and right to change these beliefs and religion. It does not protect your right to act on these thoughts against other people.

Declining to serve them isn't "acting against them."

Freedom of Association protects your right to make and leave groups at any time that serve your interests. It does not protect your right to act against groups you do not agree with.

Mmmm . . . . no. it protects your right not to interact with them in any way.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

What is all this 'your' stuff?

Are you British or something?

.

didnt mean to put a y in front of it. kind of irrelevant, though.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

 

[percysunshine]

Declining to serve them isn't "acting against them."

Mmmm . . . . no. it protects your right not to interact with them in any way.

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

What is all this 'your' stuff?

Are you British or something?

.

didnt mean to put a y in front of it. kind of irrelevant, though.

When you do it in every post, it is probably not a typo.

.

 

[lake avenue]

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc). Not helping someone at the workplace doesn't necessarily harm them, depending on the situation. Not helping someone raise awareness of something I guess isn't harming them either? I'll have to think about this one a bit.

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

 

[lake avenue]

You're really just a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Apparently that's your attitude towards anyone stating the facts. You're obviously no fucking libertarian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the direct text of your freedom of association, have fun finding the part where it says you can be an asshole.

What is all this 'your' stuff?

Are you British or something?

.

didnt mean to put a y in front of it. kind of irrelevant, though.

When you do it in every post, it is probably not a typo.

.

I did it in one post to my knowledge. If you care that much, I live in maryland.