Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

If it violated my religion to pay taxes, can the government force my participation in that activity? Yes it can.

Of course it CAN... as government has POWER.

Which is WHY the Constitution was written... to LIMIT THAT POWER.

Now WHY did the Founders want to LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER?

Because GOVERNMENT POWER IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

That's why the Founders went to war... to limit the means of the British Government to impart power on the free individuals HERE forcing them to pay taxes, just because the British Government decided that they needed to pay taxes to the British government OR ELSE!

And before you run to demand that that meant that the Founders were against government, note that the Founders WERE government and before ya run to demand that such proves that the Founders were against taxes, the Founders invoked taxation.

The difference between then and THEM and now and Leftist Government (Now) is that THE FOUNDERS WERE OBJECTIVE IN THEIR REASONING. Thus they did not take money from Pennsylvania to subsidize people in Massachusetts.

See how that works?

 

[bendog]

Does anyone really doubt that voting was fundamental right in the minds of the Founders?

Well to be honest, to be a voter when the constitution was ratified you had to be a white male landowner to be able to vote.

Many types of people were excluded from voting back then.


>>>>

Not necessarily true. Voting was set, as it is today, by the states. They determined what qualifed one to vote. Because voting is a right. And any right not given explicitly to the fed.gov is reserved to the states. Like marriage.

Exactly so. I don't think anyone could rationally argue that voting was fundamental to the founders, but who could vote was not the same as it is today. And, the fourteenth amendment did not yet exist, and there were slaves and franchise was not yet extended to females. So, focusing on whether something is fundamental seems to me not really helpful. Classification of rights is criticized by some legal scholars, even Scalia, I believe. But, the classification is important when considering what level of scrutiny to apply to a state's law on a matter. And, in the case of gay marriage, the reasons the states have come up with don't even pass the lowest scrutiny of rationality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Does anyone really doubt that voting was fundamental right in the minds of the Founders?

Well to be honest, to be a voter when the constitution was ratified you had to be a white male landowner to be able to vote.

Many types of people were excluded from voting back then.


>>>>

Actually, there was no law forbidding blacks from voting. One had to be a vested, free man. Being white an indentured white male, set you below the black doctor.

 

[bendog]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

If it violated my religion to pay taxes, can the government force my participation in that activity? Yes it can.

Of course it CAN... as government has POWER.

Which is WHY the Constitution was written... to LIMIT THAT POWER.

Now WHY did the Founders want to LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER?

Because GOVERNMENT POWER IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

That's why the Founders went to war... to limit the means of the British Government to impart power on the free individuals HERE forcing them to pay taxes, just because the British Government decided that they needed to pay taxes to the British government OR ELSE!

And before you run to demand that that meant that the Founders were against government, note that the Founders WERE government and before ya run to demand that such proves that the Founders were against taxes, the Founders invoked taxation.

The difference between then and THEM and now and Leftist Government (Now) is that THE FOUNDERS WERE OBJECTIVE IN THEIR REASONING. Thus they did not take money from Pennsylvania to subsidize people in Massachusetts.

See how that works?

Well, I don't really see why govt should have the power to tell two gay/lesbians they can't get married. LOL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

If it violated my religion to pay taxes, can the government force my participation in that activity? Yes it can.

Of course it CAN... as government has POWER.

Which is WHY the Constitution was written... to LIMIT THAT POWER.

Now WHY did the Founders want to LIMIT GOVERNMENT POWER?

Because GOVERNMENT POWER IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

That's why the Founders went to war... to limit the means of the British Government to impart power on the free individuals HERE forcing them to pay taxes, just because the British Government decided that they needed to pay taxes to the British government OR ELSE!

And before you run to demand that that meant that the Founders were against government, note that the Founders WERE government and before ya run to demand that such proves that the Founders were against taxes, the Founders invoked taxation.

The difference between then and THEM and now and Leftist Government (Now) is that THE FOUNDERS WERE OBJECTIVE IN THEIR REASONING. Thus they did not take money from Pennsylvania to subsidize people in Massachusetts.

See how that works?

Well, I don't really see why govt should have the power to tell two gay/lesbians they can't get married. LOL

Because Nature designed Marriage as it designed the human species, as the means by which one man joined with one woman.

Because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR of the undesirable variety; because homosexuality is the consequence of mental disorder that presents through among other things, sexual disorder and enforcement of behavioral standards is a fundamental function of valid governance.

 

[bendog]

Well, your two posts have a certain internal inconsistency there, sparky. LOL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, your two posts have a certain internal inconsistency there, sparky. LOL

Yet... You can't find the strength of courage to specify what that is... and this is based upon your sense that if ya did, you'd fail.

Which as such senses always do... it provided that your failure, which was nearly certain rose with your decision to not try, to 100% certainty... which is now part and parcel of WHO YOU ARE, as it is now part of your record.

Trying is always better than not trying.

In this instance, through your effort to try, you COULD have learned something, despite your failure and now... you're just as ignorant as ya were before and just as much... a failure.

See how that works?

 

[bripat9643]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

Says you citing you. Actual case history says differently.

So the Supreme Court authorized itself to determine your rights?

You are truly a liberal moron.

 

[bripat9643]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

Says you. The court can certainly recognize fundamental rights and protect them. And those rights need not be enumerated, as made ludicriously clear by the 9th amendment and the founder's discussion on the matter in the constitutional convention.

Where does the Constitution give the SC authority to determine your rights?

The BoR articulates SOME rights. But not all of them. Enumeration didn't create rights. It merely enumerated them.

What? You mean government doesn't create rights? You'll have to discuss that with your libturd cronies like PMH who says the government creates whatever rights we have.

Folks like Marty are exactly why some founders opposed a Bill of Rights. As they feared that some unenlightened soul would assume that only those rights that were enumerated actually existed. The 9th amendment was something of a compromise, explicitly contradicting this assertion.

Even if not all rights are enumerated, it doesn't follow that the Supreme Court is authorized to determine what they are. That would give it the ability to create new rights out of thin air, like the "right" to force a baker to make a cake for some queers

And the founders were wise to include it. As Marty and those who think like him demonstrate with their profound misunderstanding of the relationship of the BoR and the existence of rights.

The 9th and 10th Amendments have been a dead issue since the Civil War, which effectively abolished the principle of state's rights. The practical reality is that the government is free to trample on whatever rights it wants to. The Supreme Court is a tool in this process, not an obstacle. The government largely ignores most of the Bill of Rights as it is.

 

[guno]

Of course soon to be 50 states. That's imposed on all 50 states against the will of the public in those states.

If they have their way it will. Look how they trounced on the peoples will and VOTES in California. Either the people will take a stand one day or not

American spring?

 

[martybegan]

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

I certainly consider the court a better source than you.

And its you v. the USSC that you're giving me.

So do you agree with the court's decision in Citizens united or not?

Nope. But I recognize it as authoritative. I don't have to agree with a ruling to recognize that it creates precedent, or that the federal judiciary has jurisdiction.

Yet you apply a differing standard against opinion, basically saying "the court says so, so it must be right".

More accurately, you're giving me two options: you citing yourself. Or the USSC citing precedent.

I find the USSC to be a more relevant, more authoritative, more knowledgeable source than I do you. So basically, I'm saying 'The court said so, and they're a better source than Marty'.

And then there is practicality of it. Binding precedent is immediately relevant to the actual law and actual legal definitions. Your opinion really isn't.

Here you go for nuance and say the court is wrong, but you recognize its authority.

I've argued for authority and jurisdiction. You've argued against both. I'm explicitly contradicting you. That's not particularly nuanced.

What I saying is for the past 40 years or so the court has been exceeding its authority, making up "rights" because it feels its the right thing to do, and absconding with powers best left to representative legislative bodies.

The court cannot create law, it can only negate or confirm it. That's the theory anyway, but what we have now is courts making law, and we have a government beholden to 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

 

[martybegan]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

People are born with inherent rights, what the constitution does is try to make sure the government cannot remove them except under very limited circumstances. If one thinks a right is inherent and it is not protected by the constitution the original way to enshrine it was via the amendment process. Using the courts to create rights out of some lawyers legal calisthenics sets a dangerous precedent, because the same calisthenics can be used to remove rights via court action.

And the reason they have not be challenged successfully is the inherent problem with courts that have too much power, and a lethargic citizen base that takes this stuff.

 

[martybegan]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

You have a rather unique view if you're saying the only personal rights a person has are those in the BoR and amendments. However, the Skinner and Loving opinions, while stating marriage and procreation are fundamental rights, find at heart that the state's limitations on those rights violate equal protection because the state's excuse for limiting them in these instances just aren't good enough.

I find it curious that the NY city hand gun laws have not been successfully challenged.

The SC isn't authorized to determine what our "fundamental rights" are, so anything it says on the matter is a non sequitur.

Says you. The court can certainly recognize fundamental rights and protect them. And those rights need not be enumerated, as made ludicriously clear by the 9th amendment and the founder's discussion on the matter in the constitutional convention.

The BoR articulates SOME rights. But not all of them. Enumeration didn't create rights. It merely enumerated them. Folks like Marty are exactly why some founders opposed a Bill of Rights. As they feared that some unenlightened soul would assume that only those rights that were enumerated actually existed. The 9th amendment was something of a compromise, explicitly contradicting this assertion.

And the founders were wise to include it. As Marty and those who think like him demonstrate with their profound misunderstanding of the relationship of the BoR and the existence of rights.

Again you ignore the inherent risk of a court system that can grant rights out of thin air, namely the same court system can remove rights using the same legal logical leaps it uses to grant them when they simply do not exist in the document.

The founders included a right to keep and bear arms as well, something that progressives gleefully ignore when it suits them.

 

[martybegan]

The classification of rights are really unimportant. The right to contract was at one time more "fundamental" or protected than now. The more important concept, imo, is the degree of "scrutiny" that courts apply to different situations. In the present discussion, it is when can laws prevent marriage between consenting adult. (note I left out the number of consenting adults, because I think polygamy will be in issue, again, though the supreme court did not decide polygamy under a equal protection theory. Rather, the Mormon said he had to have mult wives to worship in his faith! yikes. Count me outta that one LOL)

But over and over again, states cannot come up with ANY reason, big or litte, to ban same sex marriage. States cannot site to anything that can be scientifically proven to benefit the state, or children.

As to marriage as a fundamental right, it's only "fundamental" because the Founders obviously believed a white man and white woman could marry. We'd been marrying even before the magna carta, and even before England was a country. The categories of who can marry has just expanded over time because states have had to justify limitations.

The only reason I come up with isn't for banning, its the fact that the courts cannot force it, as there is no explicit right to it, and the 10th amendment leaves such things to State legislatures. The best the Court could do if it was true to the document is force States to recognize out of State same sex marriages under the full faith and credit clause.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since the guests arent there with the minister and couple I guess the guests dont participate either.
The spin on the Left is dizzying.

There is the wedding itself...many (but not all) guests participate in that....but I never have seen the food people there participating...they are at the RECEPTION. What weddings have you been to where the caterers are in the seats at the wedding itself, witnessing the actual ceremony?

And witnessing is not "being forced to participate"

The only participants of the ceremony are the couple getting married, the two witnesses and the person performing the rite.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?

(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)

So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?

No you are not.

When you sit in the stands are you participating?
How about if you are a player but not on the field, are you participating?
How about you are a player on the field but the ball is in someone else's hands and you're on the opposite side?
See, you can draw the definition any way you want to fit your agenda.
In point of fact the baker feels he is participating by providing service for the wedding. The gay couple obviously feel the same way.

Sitting in the stands is not participating in the game
Sitting in a room or church where other people are getting marries is not participating in the ceremony

And how is it obvious that the people who order a wedding cake think the baker is participating in a wedding when the cake is for a party after the wedding?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since the guests arent there with the minister and couple I guess the guests dont participate either.
The spin on the Left is dizzying.

There is the wedding itself...many (but not all) guests participate in that....but I never have seen the food people there participating...they are at the RECEPTION. What weddings have you been to where the caterers are in the seats at the wedding itself, witnessing the actual ceremony?

And witnessing is not "being forced to participate"

The only participants of the ceremony are the couple getting married, the two witnesses and the person performing the rite.

Not according to the definition of the words you're using.

But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?

(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)

So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?

No you are not.

If I am watching the game on television, then I am participating in the viewership of televised reproduction of the game. Which sets me as approving of such through the concept: "fan", which is to say that through my participation in the viewership of the event, I cause by my belief and/or emotional support for the overall public support of the event to become stronger or more widespread.

Now, if the NFL sues me and forces me to come to their stadium and sell my baked goods, then at that point I would be a participant in the event itself. Which would result in a massive firefight... and at some point, my own personal worldly demise. But I would leave this world, exercising my responsibility to sustain my means to exercise my rights and in so doing, defending the means of others to exercise their own rights, in that those who may have been considering forcing others to into servitude would likely be inclined to check if the individual was a committed American before they tried such and where they couldn't be sure, they'd likely decide to 'go another way'.

Of course, as is often the case, it seems that being PROTESTED by the Deviant Cult now results in the world pouring money on ya... so, given the nature of evil, I expect to be hearing less and less of that nonsense.

All that is moot because the reception where the cake is is not the wedding ceremony.

And the baker is not forced to attend the reception usually the cake is delivered and set up hours before the party starts

 

[zeke]

Sitting in the stands is not participating in the game

Don't tell that to the Seattle Seahawk fans. They are so loud in the stands they DEFINITELY are participating in the game. When the opposing players can't hear signals, that does effect the game.

 

[orogenicman]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.

 

[martybegan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Dang near everything is a zero-sum game in contemporary American politics.

Sadly.

.