emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
We do that here, at times, but that's no freedom eh? True freedom is Anarchy. I'm a fan of that either. Tell us, why are there limits on Free Speech? Doesn't that go against the Constitution?
Freedom is the right to make your own choices, it is not the right to make other people's choices for them
And there are appropriate and Constitutional limits to one’s right to make his own choices – if one chooses to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater he’ll be arrested, and cannot make a First Amendment right to free expression claim as part of his defense.
The same is true of public accommodations laws, limiting the right one has to choose to jeopardize his local market and all interrelated markets throughout the Nation. Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory measure, where such measures limit the business owner’s right to choose to abuse his employees, to pollute the local waterways, or to sell defective and dangerous products to his customers.
Hi CCJones: this is another good message!
I note that if you keep free speech within the fuller context of the REST of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights, it checks itself; you cannot ABUSE freedom of speech or religion to cause "disruption of the peace" or it violates the right of people to ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY and/or disrupts others' right of SECURITY and liberty without due process.
The problem is often taking laws or principles and enforcing them OUT OF CONTEXT.
As for your other quote, which I also thought made very good points:
Originally Posted by C_Clayton_Jones said:Originally Posted by Mac1958 said:The PC Police are very concerned with "the law" when it suits them.
Funny, I don't see them standing up for "the law" when it comes to illegal immigration.
That’s a consequence of your ignorance of the law, not your errant perception that the law is applied inconsistently.
As a fact of Constitutional law, undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process rights (Plyler v. Doe (1982)). Consequently, undocumented immigrants are not ‘illegal’ until such time as a court determines they are and their due process rights exhausted.
Therefore, those who advocate for equal protection rights for same-sex couples are consistent in their advocacy of due process rights for undocumented immigrants, as to seek to deny either their civil liberties is equally offensive to the Constitution.
Emily reply to CCJ said:OK CCJones
if these "equal rights" advocates are for due process before depriving people of freedom,
where is the "due process" when assuming citizens won't pay for health care or insurance WITHOUT imposing federal mandates and fines?
why is federal law used to treat taxpaying citizens one way, rigorously enforcing this ACA as a "pre-emptive" measure,
while waiting on due process BEFORE enforcing laws for "alleged" illegal immigrants?
SHORTCUT SOLUTION: Rule of Reciprocity on Equal Protection of the Laws
Why not form an agreement on interpretation, that in order to INVOKE First or Fourteenth Amendment rights, the person needs to practice them as well?
So no fair being bigoted against Christian anti-gay beliefs while suing them for infringing on you
if half the problem is equally coming from you rejecting and excluding them.
Such mutual conflicts should be settled by negotiation and dispute resolution on BOTH sides, not treat this as onesided if it isn't.
If you are truly inclusive and thus infringed upon unjustly by someone imposing a bias,
then you have standing to complain or petition to redress grievances that are imposed "one way."
Most conflicts aren't. The disputes are usually rooted in underlying clashes between conflicting beliefs equally protected under law.
If you want your consent to be respected, you cannot violate the consent of others in the process of resolving the issues.
So all conflicts and decisions under this system should be settled by consensus, to be fair to all people affected equally.
So everyone's consent is respected, and beliefs/biases included equally in the process WITHOUT judging or discriminating if people have clashing religious or political views.
CCJones: do you agree such a mutually agreed approach, to resolve personal conflicts by consent, would be more in keeping with the right to
due process, free speech and press, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws for all people?
Last edited: