Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You know, it's not so much that Arizona's governor vetoed a bill saying that people have the right to act according to their religious beliefs. It's that we have evolved into a country where contemplation of such a bill is even necessary; where government is engaged in forcing people to engage in commerce with people they don't want to engage in commerce with.

The idea of calling private businesses "public accommodations" in order to justify forcing them to do things has no basis in the Constitution and is totally, completely contrary to what the Constitution was supposed to be all about. And we have a pathetic population of people who think that one role of government is to force other people to deal with them.

Very sad.

JohnStOnge wrote:You know, it's not so much that Arizona's governor vetoed a bill saying that people have the right to act according to their religious beliefs. It's that we have evolved into a country where contemplation of such a bill is even necessary; where government is engaged in forcing people to engage in commerce with people they don't want to engage in commerce with.

The idea of calling private businesses "public accommodations" in order to justify forcing them to do things has no basis in the Constitution and is totally, completely contrary to what the Constitution was supposed to be all about. And we have a pathetic population of people who think that one role of government is to force other people to deal with them.

Very sad.

The problem is that we haven't evolved enough. There are still to many ignorant bigots like you out there.

Very sad.

So people's religious liberty was lost because they cannot discriminate while conducting commerce?

kalm wrote:So people's religious liberty was lost because they cannot discriminate while conducting commerce?

Even religious liberty has limits. Some religions used to practice human sacrifice. You can believe what you wish, but when you act on your beliefs and your actions impact others in a negative way a line has to be drawn. I would hope that human decency would be enough to draw the line, it really is sad that we need the courts to do it for us.

kalm wrote:So people's religious liberty was lost because they cannot discriminate while conducting commerce?

People should be free to do or not do business with whoever they wish...

I think you guys who have responded so far have illustrated my point. What we're talking about here is a private entity. Two parties engage in commerce. Either party should be able to opt not to engage in such commerce for whatever reason they want.

A family photography business, for instance, is not the government. It should be able to do business with or not do business with whoever it chooses to do business with or not do business with. Same as someone who wants photographs taken should be able to do business with or not do business with whoever.

I cannot believe you people actually believe it's right for someone to be forced by government to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to engage in commerce with.

This country is supposed to be about liberty. It's not supposed to be about you or I being guaranteed that people will want to deal with us.

I'll give a personal example. My mother in law lives with me and my wife now. But there was a time when she lived in a house with a small rent house in the back yard. She is a fundamentalist Christian. No way her beliefs would have allowed her to rent that house to a homosexual couple. For that matter they would not have allowed her to rent that house to a heterosexual couple that was not married.

But we now have a government paradigm that says she could not honor her religious beliefs. She could not choose who she would or would not rent that little rent house to.

And we live in a country with a Constitution that explicitly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free practice thereof.

I can't believe you people can't see that what's going on is wrong. I can't believe you can't see that's it's totally contrary to any system that respects human liberty.

Even religious liberty has limits. Some religions used to practice human sacrifice. You can believe what you wish, but when you act on your beliefs and your actions impact others in a negative way a line has to be drawn. I would hope that human decency would be enough to draw the line, it really is sad that we need the courts to do it for us.

Human sacrifice is obviously a positive attack upon someone. What we're talking about here is someone opting not to interact with someone else. Nobody has any legitimate right to demand that someone else interact with them. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. And people have...or should have...the right to decide who they will and will not interact with.

What we have now is government engaged in forcing some people to interact with others that they don't want to interact with. There is NO way that that's right. And I can't believe that anyone would even argue that it is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Even religious liberty has limits. Some religions used to practice human sacrifice. You can believe what you wish, but when you act on your beliefs and your actions impact others in a negative way a line has to be drawn. I would hope that human decency would be enough to draw the line, it really is sad that we need the courts to do it for us.

Human sacrifice is obviously a positive attack upon someone. What we're talking about here is someone opting not to interact with someone else. Nobody has any legitimate right to demand that someone else interact with them. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. And people have...or should have...the right to decide who they will and will not interact with.

What we have now is government engaged in forcing some people to interact with others that they don't want to interact with. There is NO way that that's right. And I can't believe that anyone would even argue that it is.

Refusing to sell someone a good or service that they need is also a positive attack on someone. If you own the only grocery store in town, you don't get to deny someone food just because you don't like their lifestyle. There is NO way that is right. And I can't believe that anyone would even argue that it is.

JohnStOnge wrote:I'll give a personal example. My mother in law lives with me and my wife now. But there was a time when she lived in a house with a small rent house in the back yard. She is a fundamentalist Christian. No way her beliefs would have allowed her to rent that house to a homosexual couple. For that matter they would not have allowed her to rent that house to a heterosexual couple that was not married.

But we now have a government paradigm that says she could not honor her religious beliefs. She could not choose who she would or would not rent that little rent house to.

And we live in a country with a Constitution that explicitly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free practice thereof.

I can't believe you people can't see that what's going on is wrong. I can't believe you can't see that's it's totally contrary to any system that respects human liberty.

Let's say my religion is Pastafarian Humanism and I own your region's only medical chopper service (which is my private business). Your MIL has an urgent medical situation where she can only be saved if medi-vacked.

But I found out on CS.com that she's an ignorant Christian bigot which my religion forbids me from servicing...

Refusing to sell someone a good or service that they need is also a positive attack on someone.

No, it is not. Opting not to help someone is not the same as positively attacking someone. It's just not.

Let's say my religion is Pastafarian Humanism and I own your region's only medical chopper service (which is my private business). Your MIL has an urgent medical situation where she can only be saved if medi-vacked.

But I found out on CS.com that she's a ignorant bigot which my religion forbids me from servicing...

If you extend the road you're going down you would say that if nobody offers the medi-vack service you need then someone should be forced to offer it.

You have no legitimate right to force someone else to give you what you need. You really don't.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Let's say my religion is Pastafarian Humanism and I own your region's only medical chopper service (which is my private business). Your MIL has an urgent medical situation where she can only be saved if medi-vacked.

But I found out on CS.com that she's a ignorant bigot which my religion forbids me from servicing...

If you extend the road you're going down you would say that if nobody offers the medi-vack service you need then someone should be forced to offer it.

You have no legitimate right to force someone else to give you what you need. You really don't.

You are also not guaranteed the right to conduct commerce any way you see fit.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Refusing to sell someone a good or service that they need is also a positive attack on someone.

No, it is not. Opting not to help someone is not the same as positively attacking someone. It's just not.

Call it what you want.

If you are the only doctor in town, and you refuse emergency medical treatment to someone because they don't have the same eye color as you; you are putting their life at risk. I don't care if you call it a positive attack or not, it's wrong by any name.

Call it what you want.

If you are the only doctor in town, and you refuse emergency medical treatment to someone because they don't have the same eye color as you; you are putting their life at risk. I don't care if you call it a positive attack or not, it's wrong by any name.

So are you saying you have a right to force someone else to give you what you need?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Let's say my religion is Pastafarian Humanism and I own your region's only medical chopper service (which is my private business). Your MIL has an urgent medical situation where she can only be saved if medi-vacked.

But I found out on CS.com that she's a ignorant bigot which my religion forbids me from servicing...

If you extend the road you're going down you would say that if nobody offers the medi-vack service you need then someone should be forced to offer it.

You have no legitimate right to force someone else to give you what you need. You really don't.

The law says different, as it should. A hospital can't turn away a sick person just because of the color of their hair, or because they drive a foreign car.

The law says different, as it should. A hospital can't turn away a sick person just because of the color of their hair, or because they drive a foreign car.

Same question: Do you think other people should be FORCED by government to give YOU what you need?

If your answer is "yes," my point is made. Liberty is lost.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Call it what you want.

If you are the only doctor in town, and you refuse emergency medical treatment to someone because they don't have the same eye color as you; you are putting their life at risk. I don't care if you call it a positive attack or not, it's wrong by any name.

So are you saying you have a right to force someone else to give you what you need?

If they choose to go into business and offer a service, then yes. They have to offer me that service just as they offer it to everyone else.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The law says different, as it should. A hospital can't turn away a sick person just because of the color of their hair, or because they drive a foreign car.

Same question: Do you think other people should be FORCED by government to give YOU what you need?

Same answer, yes. It's part of living in a civilized society.

If they choose to go into business and offer a service, then yes. They have to offer me that service just as they offer it to everyone else.

And that attitude is why Liberty is Lost. There is absolutely no basis for saying that if they offer that service to one person they have to offer it to another.Not if they're respecting your liberty.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The law says different, as it should. A hospital can't turn away a sick person just because of the color of their hair, or because they drive a foreign car.

Same question: Do you think other people should be FORCED by government to give YOU what you need?

If your answer is "yes," my point is made. Liberty is lost.

It's probably better that we lost the "liberty" that you are talking about. I suspect that we lost it about 10,000 years ago, so I guess that you are a little late. I suggest that you find a cave in a remote part of the world, I think that you would be happy there.

same answer, yes. It's part of living in a civilized society.

Then Liberty is indeed lost.

Though I do disagree with the assertion that you cannot have a civilized society while respecting Liberty.

JohnStOnge wrote:

If they choose to go into business and offer a service, then yes. They have to offer me that service just as they offer it to everyone else.

And that attitude is why Liberty is Lost. There is absolutely no basis for saying that if they offer that service to one person they have to offer it to another.Not if they're respecting your liberty.

It's part of living in a society. Like I said, go find a cave, or a shack in Montana. You have the liberty to be a hermit if you like.

JohnStOnge wrote:

same answer, yes. It's part of living in a civilized society.

Then Liberty is indeed lost.

Though I do disagree with the assertion that you cannot have a civilized society while respecting Liberty.

Why do you keep capitalizing 'liberty'? Are you talking about the school?

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Same question: Do you think other people should be FORCED by government to give YOU what you need?

If your answer is "yes," my point is made. Liberty is lost.

It's probably better that we lost the "liberty" that you are talking about. I suspect that we lost it about 10,000 years ago, so I guess that you are a little late. I suggest that you find a cave in a remote part of the world, I think that you would be happy there.

You think we had forced commerce about 10k years ago or even 1k years ago? Heck, we haven't had it 100 yrs ago. The liberty that JSO is talking about existed until fairly recently.