I find it very disturbing

[Foxfyre]

The law varies on that from state to state. The problem comes that if the doctor abides by a good samaritan law and tends to the white sheeted guy and something goes wrong, can the doctor be sued? Or anybody else who assists the person? If so, then there should be no requirement that any person be required to assume that risk.

While I never completely trust Wiki to get it exactly right, there is a really good discussion on this in the Common Law section here:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that if we are each at liberty to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. should the government be given authority to require one person to be in servitude to another person in any way? The exception would be in social contract that would require a person to be non discriminatory in their business or in a legal marriage contract that assumes certain responsibilities of husband and wife to each other and to their children. The reasoning is that those entering into business or marriage willingly assume specific responsibilities by virtue of their license/contract.

So then we get to the sticky wicket of how much must be required of a person in order to be in business? And does that include forcing the person to set aside all his religious, moral, and ethical convictions?

So I solve that problem with my conviction that yes, the person should serve even the person he abhors in his own place of business. But he should not be required to provide service at an EVENT which goes against his religious, moral, or ethical convictions. To me that is a perfectly reasonable compromise to achieve equal protection under the law.

In terms of the requirement of servitude, I think the answer is yes. However, it again becomes a matter how much. Can the government draft people into the armed forces? I can tell you the answer to that is yes, I served with quite a lot of them. Can you be compelled to testify in court? Yes. You agree you can be compelled to serve within the confines of the business site. So we come to that question again of where the line is. I'm not convinced where the physical location of the service matters, though I really do see your point. But a building is not an event. If selling flowers is not participating, I don't see how delivering flowers is. Let's assume we are talking about the hall rented for the ceremony. Can the owner of the hall refuse to rent it out for the same reason, despite the fact we are now talking about the business site?

For me, the question first is does the law violate the Constitution. I don't see that it does. Second, does it violate the State Constitution. In this case, again no. So whether I agree with the law or not, it is within the purview of the state to initiate and enforce the law. However, I am on the fence as to whether or not this particular application of the law is Constitutional. I don't think the florist was discriminating because they were gay. She was discriminating because she believes the ceremony is wrong.

When I argue what 'should's' and 'ought's' form my convictions and belief system, it really doesn't matter to me what the law says or what the court says. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law and court rulings.

I don't see service in the military or court testimony or jury duty as necessarily involuntary servitude however.

For instance yes, the Congress and Presidents and courts have agreed with a mandatory draft into the military. If every man and woman who physically qualifies for the service is subject to that draft, and it is done via a blind lottery system, that one is borderline for me. It is the constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide the common defense and those drafted are doing that on their own behalf as well as everybody else, so I think that one we have to think about. I do much prefer an all volunteer military as much as possible.

Being subpoenaed for court testimony or jury duty is another gray area--if our testimony is necessary to establish guilt or innocence or right or wrong, is this really servitude to another? Or an impartial and necessary system of achieving justice--one of those things we do in order to be citizens of a country just as we all should proportionately share in the NECESSARY funding of NECESSARY functions of government. Such things that benefit no privileged person or no special interest group but benefit all?

But again if we decide mandatory court testimony is a reasonable requirement for all citizens, people should be at least compensated for any financial costs or loss resulting from that testimony. And if mandatory jury duty is a necessary condition of citizenship, it must always be on a blind lottery system that ensures equal opportunity for all to participate.

Forcing a baker or florist or photographer or whatever to provide service at an event that is ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable to that business owner serves no uniform national interest and, IMO, violates every principle of what liberty is.

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

I disagree. Involuntary servitude for the benefit of another individual or special interest group is a very different thing from necessary service that benefits the whole.

There is a side of me that says it isn't okay to require a person to serve another even in a place of business--a business owner should have a right to refuse service to anybody.

But there is also a more compelling side of me that knows it is wrong to exclude people for no other reason than they were born as who and what they are. So I don't intrinsically object to a condition of a business license specifying that a business open to the public must accommodate all of that public. But accommodating the public and being forced to participate in an event off premises are two different things.

And IMO the Constitution can protect us only if the people demand that it be interpreted and applied as it was originally intended. Courts who change that intent to be what they want it to be cannot be trusted to protect us in anything.

 

[PratchettFan]

In terms of the requirement of servitude, I think the answer is yes. However, it again becomes a matter how much. Can the government draft people into the armed forces? I can tell you the answer to that is yes, I served with quite a lot of them. Can you be compelled to testify in court? Yes. You agree you can be compelled to serve within the confines of the business site. So we come to that question again of where the line is. I'm not convinced where the physical location of the service matters, though I really do see your point. But a building is not an event. If selling flowers is not participating, I don't see how delivering flowers is. Let's assume we are talking about the hall rented for the ceremony. Can the owner of the hall refuse to rent it out for the same reason, despite the fact we are now talking about the business site?

For me, the question first is does the law violate the Constitution. I don't see that it does. Second, does it violate the State Constitution. In this case, again no. So whether I agree with the law or not, it is within the purview of the state to initiate and enforce the law. However, I am on the fence as to whether or not this particular application of the law is Constitutional. I don't think the florist was discriminating because they were gay. She was discriminating because she believes the ceremony is wrong.

When I argue what 'should's' and 'ought's' form my convictions and belief system, it really doesn't matter to me what the law says or what the court says. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law and court rulings.

I don't see service in the military or court testimony or jury duty as necessarily involuntary servitude however.

For instance yes, the Congress and Presidents and courts have agreed with a mandatory draft into the military. If every man and woman who physically qualifies for the service is subject to that draft, and it is done via a blind lottery system, that one is borderline for me. It is the constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide the common defense and those drafted are doing that on their own behalf as well as everybody else, so I think that one we have to think about. I do much prefer an all volunteer military as much as possible.

Being subpoenaed for court testimony or jury duty is another gray area--if our testimony is necessary to establish guilt or innocence or right or wrong, is this really servitude to another? Or an impartial and necessary system of achieving justice--one of those things we do in order to be citizens of a country just as we all should proportionately share in the NECESSARY funding of NECESSARY functions of government. Such things that benefit no privileged person or no special interest group but benefit all?

But again if we decide mandatory court testimony is a reasonable requirement for all citizens, people should be at least compensated for any financial costs or loss resulting from that testimony. And if mandatory jury duty is a necessary condition of citizenship, it must always be on a blind lottery system that ensures equal opportunity for all to participate.

Forcing a baker or florist or photographer or whatever to provide service at an event that is ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable to that business owner serves no uniform national interest and, IMO, violates every principle of what liberty is.

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

I disagree. Involuntary servitude for the benefit of another individual or special interest group is a very different thing from necessary service that benefits the whole.

There is a side of me that says it isn't okay to require a person to serve another even in a place of business--a business owner should have a right to refuse service to anybody.

But there is also a more compelling side of me that knows it is wrong to exclude people for no other reason than they were born as who and what they are. So I don't intrinsically object to a condition of a business license specifying that a business open to the public must accommodate all of that public. But accommodating the public and being forced to participate in an event off premises are two different things.

And IMO the Constitution can protect us only if the people demand that it be interpreted and applied as it was originally intended. Courts who change that intent to be what they want it to be cannot be trusted to protect us in anything.

As it was originally intended, women couldn't vote and people could own slaves. Interpretation of the laws is always a reflection of the society. 100 years ago, no court would consider denial of service (including housing, medical care, etc.) on the basis of race was not fully in compliance with the Constitution. 30 years ago no court would have considered for a second SSM might be protected under the Constitution. The laws are and should be a reflection of who we are, not who people dead 200 years were.

That the state has a right to legislate in this area. I would say it not only has a right, it has a responsibility to do so. The question is not if they should, but to what extent. I remain unconvinced that the location of the service is germane. I am unconvinced that setting up a display for a ceremony is the same thing as participating in it. But I am also unconvinced it is not. For some, on both sides, it seems to be clear. I see it as extremely muddy with lots of alligators lurking in the water.

 

[Foxfyre]

When I argue what 'should's' and 'ought's' form my convictions and belief system, it really doesn't matter to me what the law says or what the court says. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the law and court rulings.

I don't see service in the military or court testimony or jury duty as necessarily involuntary servitude however.

For instance yes, the Congress and Presidents and courts have agreed with a mandatory draft into the military. If every man and woman who physically qualifies for the service is subject to that draft, and it is done via a blind lottery system, that one is borderline for me. It is the constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide the common defense and those drafted are doing that on their own behalf as well as everybody else, so I think that one we have to think about. I do much prefer an all volunteer military as much as possible.

Being subpoenaed for court testimony or jury duty is another gray area--if our testimony is necessary to establish guilt or innocence or right or wrong, is this really servitude to another? Or an impartial and necessary system of achieving justice--one of those things we do in order to be citizens of a country just as we all should proportionately share in the NECESSARY funding of NECESSARY functions of government. Such things that benefit no privileged person or no special interest group but benefit all?

But again if we decide mandatory court testimony is a reasonable requirement for all citizens, people should be at least compensated for any financial costs or loss resulting from that testimony. And if mandatory jury duty is a necessary condition of citizenship, it must always be on a blind lottery system that ensures equal opportunity for all to participate.

Forcing a baker or florist or photographer or whatever to provide service at an event that is ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable to that business owner serves no uniform national interest and, IMO, violates every principle of what liberty is.

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

I disagree. Involuntary servitude for the benefit of another individual or special interest group is a very different thing from necessary service that benefits the whole.

There is a side of me that says it isn't okay to require a person to serve another even in a place of business--a business owner should have a right to refuse service to anybody.

But there is also a more compelling side of me that knows it is wrong to exclude people for no other reason than they were born as who and what they are. So I don't intrinsically object to a condition of a business license specifying that a business open to the public must accommodate all of that public. But accommodating the public and being forced to participate in an event off premises are two different things.

And IMO the Constitution can protect us only if the people demand that it be interpreted and applied as it was originally intended. Courts who change that intent to be what they want it to be cannot be trusted to protect us in anything.

As it was originally intended, women couldn't vote and people could own slaves. Interpretation of the laws is always a reflection of the society. 100 years ago, no court would consider denial of service (including housing, medical care, etc.) on the basis of race was not fully in compliance with the Constitution. 30 years ago no court would have considered for a second SSM might be protected under the Constitution. The laws are and should be a reflection of who we are, not who people dead 200 years were.

That the state has a right to legislate in this area. I would say it not only has a right, it has a responsibility to do so. The question is not if they should, but to what extent. I remain unconvinced that the location of the service is germane. I am unconvinced that setting up a display for a ceremony is the same thing as participating in it. But I am also unconvinced it is not. For some, on both sides, it seems to be clear. I see it as extremely muddy with lots of alligators lurking in the water.

The original Constitution did not involve voting rights per se but set up what at that time was a realistic system of limiting the vote to the head of household rather than every member of the family. At that time it was a highly practical system and when it no longer became practical or reasonable, the law was changed.

The original Constitution neither established nor condoned slavery. Virtually to a man, all the signers of the Constitution would have abolished slavery had they felt they had that option. But in order to form a cohesive and viable nation, they had to have the slave states and therefore compromised with the implied agreement that the federal government would not interfere with those states and subsequent law dealt with that as best as it could. And the federal government did a pretty good job of ensuring that the institution of slavery would be be allowed in the territories as they formed themselves into states and they severely limited the slave trade. And slavery has not existed in this country now for 150 years.

Has everything done under the banner of Constitutional originalism been a good thing. No. But the Constitutiton also provides opportunity for us to learn from our mistakes and correct them as we go alone.

The original Constitution was the most brilliant document ever devised to establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people so that it would be the people having their rights secured and then governing themselves in a way that allowed maximum liberty, choices, options, and opportunities.

There is no liberty, choice, option, or opportunity if one group of people can dictate to another how people are required to organize and live their lives.

 

[Silhouette]

As it was originally intended, women couldn't vote and people could own slaves. Interpretation of the laws is always a reflection of the society. 100 years ago, no court would consider denial of service (including housing, medical care, etc.) on the basis of race was not fully in compliance with the Constitution. 30 years ago no court would have considered for a second SSM might be protected under the Constitution. The laws are and should be a reflection of who we are, not who people dead 200 years were..

The Constitution covers gender (women) and race (former slaves etc.) but it does not cover (just some) lifestyles repugnant to the majority. Particularly when those lifestyles want to force states to institutionalize "marriages" with fatherless sons and motherless daughters in a brand new social experiment using children as lab rats.

The irony here is the people wanting to force this experimental situation on voteless children grew up themselves knowing a mother and father. We have statistics on fatherless sons and motherless daughters...and they're not good..

 

[PratchettFan]

I understand your position on the law, but I'm not sure it is relevant. I personally think drug laws are morally and ethically wrong, as well as extraordinarily destructive to the country. But that does not mean I don't consider those laws to be valid. IOW, while wrong they do fall within the mission of the state. Perfection is simply not something we are going to achieve, especially since it is unlikely we will all agree as to what perfection is.

The point I was making is that it is not a yes/no issue. When you asked if the government should be given the authority to require one person to be in servitude to another, I indicated it could and gave examples as to how. You agreed with those examples. So it really isn't a matter of if, but of how much. So long as we operate under the rule if "it all depends", we are going to face this issue.

What is important is that the debate continue and be very public.

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

I disagree. Involuntary servitude for the benefit of another individual or special interest group is a very different thing from necessary service that benefits the whole.

There is a side of me that says it isn't okay to require a person to serve another even in a place of business--a business owner should have a right to refuse service to anybody.

But there is also a more compelling side of me that knows it is wrong to exclude people for no other reason than they were born as who and what they are. So I don't intrinsically object to a condition of a business license specifying that a business open to the public must accommodate all of that public. But accommodating the public and being forced to participate in an event off premises are two different things.

And IMO the Constitution can protect us only if the people demand that it be interpreted and applied as it was originally intended. Courts who change that intent to be what they want it to be cannot be trusted to protect us in anything.

As it was originally intended, women couldn't vote and people could own slaves. Interpretation of the laws is always a reflection of the society. 100 years ago, no court would consider denial of service (including housing, medical care, etc.) on the basis of race was not fully in compliance with the Constitution. 30 years ago no court would have considered for a second SSM might be protected under the Constitution. The laws are and should be a reflection of who we are, not who people dead 200 years were.

That the state has a right to legislate in this area. I would say it not only has a right, it has a responsibility to do so. The question is not if they should, but to what extent. I remain unconvinced that the location of the service is germane. I am unconvinced that setting up a display for a ceremony is the same thing as participating in it. But I am also unconvinced it is not. For some, on both sides, it seems to be clear. I see it as extremely muddy with lots of alligators lurking in the water.

The original Constitution did not involve voting rights per se but set up what at that time was a realistic system of limiting the vote to the head of household rather than every member of the family. At that time it was a highly practical system and when it no longer became practical or reasonable, the law was changed.

The original Constitution neither established nor condoned slavery. Virtually to a man, all the signers of the Constitution would have abolished slavery had they felt they had that option. But in order to form a cohesive and viable nation, they had to have the slave states and therefore compromised with the implied agreement that the federal government would not interfere with those states and subsequent law dealt with that as best as it could. And the federal government did a pretty good job of ensuring that the institution of slavery would be be allowed in the territories as they formed themselves into states and they severely limited the slave trade. And slavery has not existed in this country now for 150 years.

Has everything done under the banner of Constitutional originalism been a good thing. No. But the Constitutiton also provides opportunity for us to learn from our mistakes and correct them as we go alone.

The original Constitution was the most brilliant document ever devised to establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people so that it would be the people having their rights secured and then governing themselves in a way that allowed maximum liberty, choices, options, and opportunities.

There is no liberty, choice, option, or opportunity if one group of people can dictate to another how people are required to organize and live their lives.

No argument the document has worked well. But it works well because it does not keep us in the past. The government the founders ran did not allow women to vote and did allow slavery, so it really can't be argued that they intended it to be otherwise. They lived in a different time than we do and in this time it is our responsibility to govern, not theirs. So I am not moved by arguments about the intent of the founders.

Let's take that last statement. If one group of people tells another group of people you cannot buy homes or shop in this part of town, you need to live and shop over there instead, are they not dictating how the other group organizes and lives their lives? That was, in fact, the conditions under which PA laws developed. Laws do not arise from a vacuum. If we are to prevent this from happening, then the state must step in.

Ultimately, we have to consider that human beings aren't very nice. We tend to treat each other badly when left unchecked. Taking away government does not create a paradise of free will - it creates a nightmare of bloodshed and petty warlords. Freedom depends upon a society which is stable and based upon law that is seen to be at least reasonably equitable. This means sometimes we don't get to do what we want or have to do what we don't want. If someone doesn't think it is equitable or just, the founders did wisely place the authority for that in the hands of the judiciary rather than the legislature or executive.

 

[Foxfyre]

Weeeeeeellll....not quite. I didn't agree that the military draft or testifying in court or jury duty is involuntary servitude to another. I intended to classify such as necessary requirements for citizens in order for the government to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Such benefits us all including the person serving in the military or called as a witness or a juror. There is a huge difference between this and requiring a person to give up his/her time, labor, and resources for the benefit of another person or persons.

And I also did not mean to imply that I can legitimately disobey a law just because I don't like it. But when a law is unjust and when it violates every principle the Constitution is based on, then all of us should rise up in protest of that law and demand that it be overturned. And we are perfectly within our rights to demand arbitration of whether an oppressive law violates a higher principle protected by the Constitution and therefore can be disobeyed.

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

I disagree. Involuntary servitude for the benefit of another individual or special interest group is a very different thing from necessary service that benefits the whole.

There is a side of me that says it isn't okay to require a person to serve another even in a place of business--a business owner should have a right to refuse service to anybody.

But there is also a more compelling side of me that knows it is wrong to exclude people for no other reason than they were born as who and what they are. So I don't intrinsically object to a condition of a business license specifying that a business open to the public must accommodate all of that public. But accommodating the public and being forced to participate in an event off premises are two different things.

And IMO the Constitution can protect us only if the people demand that it be interpreted and applied as it was originally intended. Courts who change that intent to be what they want it to be cannot be trusted to protect us in anything.

As it was originally intended, women couldn't vote and people could own slaves. Interpretation of the laws is always a reflection of the society. 100 years ago, no court would consider denial of service (including housing, medical care, etc.) on the basis of race was not fully in compliance with the Constitution. 30 years ago no court would have considered for a second SSM might be protected under the Constitution. The laws are and should be a reflection of who we are, not who people dead 200 years were.

That the state has a right to legislate in this area. I would say it not only has a right, it has a responsibility to do so. The question is not if they should, but to what extent. I remain unconvinced that the location of the service is germane. I am unconvinced that setting up a display for a ceremony is the same thing as participating in it. But I am also unconvinced it is not. For some, on both sides, it seems to be clear. I see it as extremely muddy with lots of alligators lurking in the water.

The original Constitution did not involve voting rights per se but set up what at that time was a realistic system of limiting the vote to the head of household rather than every member of the family. At that time it was a highly practical system and when it no longer became practical or reasonable, the law was changed.

The original Constitution neither established nor condoned slavery. Virtually to a man, all the signers of the Constitution would have abolished slavery had they felt they had that option. But in order to form a cohesive and viable nation, they had to have the slave states and therefore compromised with the implied agreement that the federal government would not interfere with those states and subsequent law dealt with that as best as it could. And the federal government did a pretty good job of ensuring that the institution of slavery would be be allowed in the territories as they formed themselves into states and they severely limited the slave trade. And slavery has not existed in this country now for 150 years.

Has everything done under the banner of Constitutional originalism been a good thing. No. But the Constitutiton also provides opportunity for us to learn from our mistakes and correct them as we go alone.

The original Constitution was the most brilliant document ever devised to establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people so that it would be the people having their rights secured and then governing themselves in a way that allowed maximum liberty, choices, options, and opportunities.

There is no liberty, choice, option, or opportunity if one group of people can dictate to another how people are required to organize and live their lives.

No argument the document has worked well. But it works well because it does not keep us in the past. The government the founders ran did not allow women to vote and did allow slavery, so it really can't be argued that they intended it to be otherwise. They lived in a different time than we do and in this time it is our responsibility to govern, not theirs. So I am not moved by arguments about the intent of the founders.

Let's take that last statement. If one group of people tells another group of people you cannot buy homes or shop in this part of town, you need to live and shop over there instead, are they not dictating how the other group organizes and lives their lives? That was, in fact, the conditions under which PA laws developed. Laws do not arise from a vacuum. If we are to prevent this from happening, then the state must step in.

Ultimately, we have to consider that human beings aren't very nice. We tend to treat each other badly when left unchecked. Taking away government does not create a paradise of free will - it creates a nightmare of bloodshed and petty warlords. Freedom depends upon a society which is stable and based upon law that is seen to be at least reasonably equitable. This means sometimes we don't get to do what we want or have to do what we don't want. If someone doesn't think it is equitable or just, the founders did wisely place the authority for that in the hands of the judiciary rather than the legislature or executive.

You can't have both liberty and the right to be 'treated well.' You can't have both liberty and require people to be 'nice'. The only power the Founders intended the judiciary to have was to interpret the law as written and intended, provide a means to determine justice within that law, and thereby protect all our rights.

The Founders never intended the Constitution change to conform to the ideals of statists, liberals, leftists, political class, progressives, conservatives, rightists, classical liberals, or any other ideological concepts. They knew once the Constitution was changed and used to establish the social order, the Constitution would be for all practical purposes dead and the people would again be under bondage to dictator, monarch, pope, or other authoritarian authority who can do anything to us it wants and will assign us what rights we will and will not have.

 

[PratchettFan]

Servitude is servitude. If the state has a valid reason to require it, then it is a matter of degree only. You have indicated it is ok for the state to require me to serve you in my place of business, which is as much servitude as requiring me to come to your location if that is a service I offer to the public. We agree the line is somewhere in the middle, we just don't necessarily agree exactly where. That is the nature of human beings.

Of course we are in our rights to demand anything we like. That falls under the first amendment. If it is felt there is a violation of the Constitution, then we have the court system to respond. I really hope the florist in this case takes advantage of that. I do agree this is an important issue.

I disagree. Involuntary servitude for the benefit of another individual or special interest group is a very different thing from necessary service that benefits the whole.

There is a side of me that says it isn't okay to require a person to serve another even in a place of business--a business owner should have a right to refuse service to anybody.

But there is also a more compelling side of me that knows it is wrong to exclude people for no other reason than they were born as who and what they are. So I don't intrinsically object to a condition of a business license specifying that a business open to the public must accommodate all of that public. But accommodating the public and being forced to participate in an event off premises are two different things.

And IMO the Constitution can protect us only if the people demand that it be interpreted and applied as it was originally intended. Courts who change that intent to be what they want it to be cannot be trusted to protect us in anything.

As it was originally intended, women couldn't vote and people could own slaves. Interpretation of the laws is always a reflection of the society. 100 years ago, no court would consider denial of service (including housing, medical care, etc.) on the basis of race was not fully in compliance with the Constitution. 30 years ago no court would have considered for a second SSM might be protected under the Constitution. The laws are and should be a reflection of who we are, not who people dead 200 years were.

That the state has a right to legislate in this area. I would say it not only has a right, it has a responsibility to do so. The question is not if they should, but to what extent. I remain unconvinced that the location of the service is germane. I am unconvinced that setting up a display for a ceremony is the same thing as participating in it. But I am also unconvinced it is not. For some, on both sides, it seems to be clear. I see it as extremely muddy with lots of alligators lurking in the water.

The original Constitution did not involve voting rights per se but set up what at that time was a realistic system of limiting the vote to the head of household rather than every member of the family. At that time it was a highly practical system and when it no longer became practical or reasonable, the law was changed.

The original Constitution neither established nor condoned slavery. Virtually to a man, all the signers of the Constitution would have abolished slavery had they felt they had that option. But in order to form a cohesive and viable nation, they had to have the slave states and therefore compromised with the implied agreement that the federal government would not interfere with those states and subsequent law dealt with that as best as it could. And the federal government did a pretty good job of ensuring that the institution of slavery would be be allowed in the territories as they formed themselves into states and they severely limited the slave trade. And slavery has not existed in this country now for 150 years.

Has everything done under the banner of Constitutional originalism been a good thing. No. But the Constitutiton also provides opportunity for us to learn from our mistakes and correct them as we go alone.

The original Constitution was the most brilliant document ever devised to establish a government of the people, by the people, and for the people so that it would be the people having their rights secured and then governing themselves in a way that allowed maximum liberty, choices, options, and opportunities.

There is no liberty, choice, option, or opportunity if one group of people can dictate to another how people are required to organize and live their lives.

No argument the document has worked well. But it works well because it does not keep us in the past. The government the founders ran did not allow women to vote and did allow slavery, so it really can't be argued that they intended it to be otherwise. They lived in a different time than we do and in this time it is our responsibility to govern, not theirs. So I am not moved by arguments about the intent of the founders.

Let's take that last statement. If one group of people tells another group of people you cannot buy homes or shop in this part of town, you need to live and shop over there instead, are they not dictating how the other group organizes and lives their lives? That was, in fact, the conditions under which PA laws developed. Laws do not arise from a vacuum. If we are to prevent this from happening, then the state must step in.

Ultimately, we have to consider that human beings aren't very nice. We tend to treat each other badly when left unchecked. Taking away government does not create a paradise of free will - it creates a nightmare of bloodshed and petty warlords. Freedom depends upon a society which is stable and based upon law that is seen to be at least reasonably equitable. This means sometimes we don't get to do what we want or have to do what we don't want. If someone doesn't think it is equitable or just, the founders did wisely place the authority for that in the hands of the judiciary rather than the legislature or executive.

You can't have both liberty and the right to be 'treated well.' You can't have both liberty and require people to be 'nice'. The only power the Founders intended the judiciary to have was to interpret the law as written and intended, provide a means to determine justice within that law, and thereby protect all our rights.

The Founders never intended the Constitution change to conform to the ideals of statists, liberals, leftists, political class, progressives, conservatives, rightists, classical liberals, or any other ideological concepts. They knew once the Constitution was changed and used to establish the social order, the Constitution would be for all practical purposes dead and the people would again be under bondage to dictator, monarch, pope, or other authoritarian authority who can do anything to us it wants and will assign us what rights we will and will not have.

You can't have liberty without law. The founders intended to place the authority to resolve disputes arising out of the Constitution with the judiciary because they said it in Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution.

If the founders knew what you say they knew (and I don't think you have this right) then they were wrong. We currently enjoy greater liberty than at almost any other time of our history. Certainly far greater liberty than existed during the time of the founders. But liberty is neither free nor unlimited.

BTW, when I said people aren't nice, I didn't mean not polite. I meant they are bloodthirsty killers who have never had a problem with butchering each other with enthusiasm. If you want to see what liberty looks like without government influence, go visit some place like Somalia.

 

[dblack]

Communicating does not mean agreeing. I have not misunderstood you, I just think you are wrong. There is a difference.

Actually, you have. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. And I really wish you'd give it another shot. The concept of inalienable rights you're rejecting isn't the one I'm citing. You're focused exclusively on which rights are actually protected by government, as though the protection of a given right is what makes it 'inalienable'. But that has nothing to do with the concept I'm referring to.

"Inalienable" is a way to distinguish, out of all the possible "rights" we might claim, those are fundamentally linked to free will. It doesn't mean they're "sacrosanct" or that they're somehow magically protected without government. It just means that they are rights we can exercise as an inherent property of volition, without needing any empowerment from an outside source. The shorthand for that is often framed as "rights we'd still have if no one else was even around".

It's important because it draws a distinction between rights that don't require active assistance from others, and those that do. It's also important because these kinds of rights aren't a zero some game. One person's right to free speech doesn't diminish another's. What I see you doing is assuming all rights essentially step on each other and government is just a matter of balancing that. That's what prompts you to conclude that corporatism is inevitable, and it's why I'm saying it's not.

I really do understand what you are saying. My response is the same. What you are describing does not exist. It has no basis in reality.

I don't know what to say. You're simply talking about something else, and insisting I'm saying something I'm not.. I'm not talking about the myth, and I'm not assigning any of the traits that are causing you to reject the concept. You don't seem to be paying any attention to what I am saying, focusing instead on some construct you can't shake.

You can argue your freedom of speech does not impose upon mine...

That's emphatically NOT what I'm arguing.

but it may well impose upon my right to privacy, my right not to be harassed, my right not to be libeled. It may impose upon my personal safety or the safety of the nation. It does not exist in a vacuum and you keep it only to the extent your neighbors agree you can keep it. If they disagree, it is difficult to exercise your freedom of speech while hanging from a tree or burning at a stake.

Exactly! I'm not arguing anything in conflict with this observation. I'm simply pointing out that certain rights don't require anyone else's help for you to exercise them. They don't, by necessity, diminish anyone else's freedom. Contrast the freedom of speech with the "right to healthcare". Speech can certainly be used to impose on others. But it's not a necessity. You can exercise your freedom of speech without imposing on anyone in any way.

But the right to healthcare, by definition, requires someone else to provide you with a service. You can't exercise such a right without imposing on someone else. And government can't ensure your right to healthcare without compelling someone else to serve you.

You seem to think this is all about claiming that certain rights are infallible or beyond reproach - but that's not, AT ALL, what I'm saying. I wish you could comprehend that. Maybe it would help for you to think of inalienable rights as "innate abilities", rather than "rights", and let go of the myths and baggage that accompany the term.

 

[PratchettFan]

Communicating does not mean agreeing. I have not misunderstood you, I just think you are wrong. There is a difference.

Actually, you have. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. And I really wish you'd give it another shot. The concept of inalienable rights you're rejecting isn't the one I'm citing. You're focused exclusively on which rights are actually protected by government, as though the protection of a given right is what makes it 'inalienable'. But that has nothing to do with the concept I'm referring to.

"Inalienable" is a way to distinguish, out of all the possible "rights" we might claim, those are fundamentally linked to free will. It doesn't mean they're "sacrosanct" or that they're somehow magically protected without government. It just means that they are rights we can exercise as an inherent property of volition, without needing any empowerment from an outside source. The shorthand for that is often framed as "rights we'd still have if no one else was even around".

It's important because it draws a distinction between rights that don't require active assistance from others, and those that do. It's also important because these kinds of rights aren't a zero some game. One person's right to free speech doesn't diminish another's. What I see you doing is assuming all rights essentially step on each other and government is just a matter of balancing that. That's what prompts you to conclude that corporatism is inevitable, and it's why I'm saying it's not.

I really do understand what you are saying. My response is the same. What you are describing does not exist. It has no basis in reality.

I don't know what to say. You're simply talking about something else, and insisting I'm saying something I'm not.. I'm not talking about the myth, and I'm not assigning any of the traits that are causing you to reject the concept. You don't seem to be paying any attention to what I am saying, focusing instead on some construct you can't shake.

You can argue your freedom of speech does not impose upon mine...

That's emphatically NOT what I'm arguing.

but it may well impose upon my right to privacy, my right not to be harassed, my right not to be libeled. It may impose upon my personal safety or the safety of the nation. It does not exist in a vacuum and you keep it only to the extent your neighbors agree you can keep it. If they disagree, it is difficult to exercise your freedom of speech while hanging from a tree or burning at a stake.

Exactly! I'm not arguing anything in conflict with this observation. I'm simply pointing out that certain rights don't require anyone else's help for you to exercise them. They don't, by necessity, diminish anyone else's freedom. Contrast the freedom of speech with the "right to healthcare". Speech can certainly be used to impose on others. But it's not a necessity. You can exercise your freedom of speech without imposing on anyone in any way.

But the right to healthcare, by definition, requires someone else to provide you with a service. You can't exercise such a right without imposing on someone else. And government can't ensure your right to healthcare without compelling someone else to serve you.

You seem to think this is all about claiming that certain rights are infallible or beyond reproach - but that's not, AT ALL, what I'm saying. I wish you could comprehend that. Maybe it would help for you to think of inalienable rights as "innate abilities", rather than "rights", and let go of the myths and baggage that accompany the term.

You have an innate ability to speak. So what? You can walk into the woods and say what you like. Again, so what?

We are talking about rights and that has no meaning in the absence of society. Alone in the woods you can run around naked and masturbate on the trees if it pleases you, but that does not equate to a right. Within society there are no rights of a special kind. They are not inalienable nor are they innate. The right to speak your mind is no different than the right to healthcare if the society sees it as such. If your right to speak your mind has any meaning at all, then it automatically imposes upon others because they have to let you speak. I can't just punch you in the mouth for saying something I don't like because society does not allow me to. There are societies, in fact historically most societies, where that was/is not the case.

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant. The very existence of the right is entirely dependent upon the society and it is not a one way street. You are not just entitled to it. In return for the rights you have to act in a manner acceptable to the society. If that means you have to serve people, then you serve people.

In our society we are lucky enough to have a firm base in law. But your rights do not trump those laws. They are derived from those laws and are thus subservient to them. If the law says you have a right to do something, then you do. If it does not, then you do not no matter what adjective you might apply to it.

 

[dblack]

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant.

It's utterly relevant to the kind of laws required to protect said right. That's the entire point. Inalienable rights require only that we mind our own business. That we refrain from forcing our will on others.

 

[PratchettFan]

So whether or not a right doesn't require anyone's help is irrelevant.

It's utterly relevant to the kind of laws required to protect said right. That's the entire point. Inalienable rights require only that we mind our own business. That we refrain from forcing our will on others.

All laws are forcing our will upon others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Um, belief in gay marriage isn't protected. Not legally. Nor is opposition to gay marriage. On the issue of beliefs, the law doesn't have anything to say.

You can believe whatever you want. Now, your ACTIONS are most definitely in the realm of regulation.

Skylar what I mean is the free exercise of your religion is already proclaimed in the First Amendment, and equal protection of the laws (including from discrimination by creed) is already supposed to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

That is what I mean by protected. The laws already state that govt isn't supposed to be abused to establish religion or discriminate on the basis of creed.

But the way people abuse party, govt and political and legal process,
they actively SEEK to punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others
by pushing their own.

I argue this is just as abusive to push political beliefs through govt as it is to push religious beliefs.

But people are so engrained and so conditioned to defend their beliefs and attack others,
they don't see that political beliefs are also a form of "religiously held beliefs."
Thus people are biased toward defending their beliefs, biased against opposing beliefs,
and see nothing with using govt to establish "their beliefs over others" instead of equal protection and inclusion.

I find this Unconstitutional, and abusing party, media, legal and govt resources to push one belief
at the expense and exclusion of others is CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

 

[Redfish]

Just to revisit the OP. Can anyone explain the obsession in the media with the gay agenda? Why is the entire country spending so much time and effort trying to justify the deviant behavior of 4% of the population? Why is the government trying to mandate how the majority MUST think and believe about homosexuality? Is it votes? Why? I am sick of hearing about gay weddings, gay florists, gay actors, gay politicians, gay penguins. WTF is wrong with us?

 

[Skylar]

That is what I mean by protected. The laws already state that govt isn't supposed to be abused to establish religion or discriminate on the basis of creed.

But the way people abuse party, govt and political and legal process,
they actively SEEK to punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others
by pushing their own.

Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't 'punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others'.

Its just ordering a cake. Simply annihilating your entire argument.

 

[Redfish]

That is what I mean by protected. The laws already state that govt isn't supposed to be abused to establish religion or discriminate on the basis of creed.

But the way people abuse party, govt and political and legal process,
they actively SEEK to punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others
by pushing their own.

Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't 'punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others'.

Its just ordering a cake. Simply annihilating your entire argument.

why would a gay couple want to buy a cake from someone who does not approve of gay marriage?

answer: to stir up shit.

 

[Skylar]

That is what I mean by protected. The laws already state that govt isn't supposed to be abused to establish religion or discriminate on the basis of creed.

But the way people abuse party, govt and political and legal process,
they actively SEEK to punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others
by pushing their own.

Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't 'punish, exclude, bully, harass and deny the political beliefs of others'.

Its just ordering a cake. Simply annihilating your entire argument.

why would a gay couple want to buy a cake from someone who does not approve of gay marriage?

answer: to stir up shit.

Because they're ordering cake. Not some baker's approval.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Nope, we are spinning our wheels. Put it to a vote, settle it once and for all.

Nope. We have a system in place to do it. We don't need to revamp that system every time a new issue comes up.

LOL! It wants to allow a half dozen Leftist deviants decide what the behavior standard is.

We already voted and the majority of the people in the majority of the states rejected lowering the marriage standard. And that's how it remains.

All we're waiting on at this point is the decision as to whether or not we need to go to war to settle it.

I guess that is what the SCOTUS will decide in June.

 

[Iceweasel]

Because they're ordering cake. Not some baker's approval.

No, they're demanding approval. Just like the intolerant Nazi fucks that they are.

 

[Skylar]

Because they're ordering cake. Not some baker's approval.

No, they're demanding approval. Just like the intolerant Nazi fucks that they are.

You're using a reference to Nazis to describe someone ordering cake?

You may want to take a moment and ask yourself how skewed your perspective has to be that such a comparison would seem logical to you.

 

[Seawytch]

Just to revisit the OP. Can anyone explain the obsession in the media with the gay agenda? Why is the entire country spending so much time and effort trying to justify the deviant behavior of 4% of the population? Why is the government trying to mandate how the majority MUST think and believe about homosexuality? Is it votes? Why? I am sick of hearing about gay weddings, gay florists, gay actors, gay politicians, gay penguins. WTF is wrong with us?

Says Fishy who can't stay out of "gay" threads despite quitting them over and over and over...