Values Voters Gaining Strength

Political discussions
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by AZGrizFan »

JoltinJoe wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:57 am
kalm wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:37 am
2). Can the rights of the individual diminish or eliminate the rights of the many?
Yes.

When the individual's right is a fundamental right (for example, free exercise of religion, conscience), that right can diminish the non-fundamental rights of the many.

This is why the Little Sisters of the Poor shouldn't have to pay for their employees' contraceptive insurance coverage.

Free exercise? Fundamental right.

Right to have someone pay for your contraceptives? You may have a strong desire for such coverage, but that "right" isn't fundamental, or not constitutionally protected.

It is also is why a photographer shouldn't be compelled to photograph a gay wedding, based on religious objections. Free exercise is a fundamental right. Your interest having a specific photographer shoot your wedding is not constitutionally protected.

This is the essence of our constitutional system. That an individual's right, even a fundamental right, must be diminished in the interest of the many, is a utilitarian principle common to both Fascism and Communism. [PS -- Ultimately, the "holder" of the "rights of the many," and the party who may enforce the "rights of the many," turns out to the government, when the "rights of the many" are used to outweigh the individual's right]. It is the trademark of every oppressive government that it restricts the rights of the individual in the name of the "many."
[/quote]

Post of the year. Nicely put, Joe. :nod: :nod: :nod:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48415
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:57 am
kalm wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:37 am
2). Can the rights of the individual diminish or eliminate the rights of the many?
[/quote]Yes.

When the individual's right is a fundamental right (for example, free exercise of religion, conscience), that right can diminish the non-fundamental rights of the many.

This is why the Little Sisters of the Poor shouldn't have to pay for their employees' contraceptive insurance coverage.

Free exercise? Fundamental right.

Right to have someone pay for your contraceptives? You may have a strong desire for such coverage, but that "right" isn't fundamental, or not constitutionally protected.

It is also is why a photographer shouldn't be compelled to photograph a gay wedding, based on religious objections. Free exercise is a fundamental right. Your interest having a specific photographer shoot your wedding is not constitutionally protected.

This is the essence of our constitutional system. That an individual's right, even a fundamental right, must be diminished in the interest of the many, is a utilitarian principle common to both Fascism and Communism. [PS -- Ultimately, the "holder" of the "rights of the many," and the party who may enforce the "rights of the many," turns out to the government, when the "rights of the many" are used to outweigh the individual's right]. It is the trademark of every oppressive government that it restricts the rights of the individual in the name of the "many."
[/quote]

Again, good post.

What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 37021
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by 89Hen »

kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:48 am What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48415
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by kalm »

89Hen wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:56 am
kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:48 am What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
You reconcile it with a failed link?

:shock:

:lol:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 37021
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by 89Hen »

kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:57 am You reconcile it with a failed link?

:shock:

:lol:
If that's what it takes.
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48415
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by kalm »

89Hen wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:58 am
kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:57 am You reconcile it with a failed link?

:shock:

:lol:
If that's what it takes.
Mmm. I thought it might involve the Bible and/or the constitution.
Image
Image
Image
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by JoltinJoe »

kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:48 am
Again, good post.

What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
The Supreme Court has developed a body of law concerning when a fundamental right may by infringed by the government.

The state may infringe on a fundamental right when it demonstrates (i) that there is a compelling governmental interest in curtailing that right; and (ii) that the state's infringement is no broader than necessary to accomplish its interest. The government must show that its actions are no more restrictive than necessary to advance its compelling interest.

This is called the "strict scrutiny" test. Any governmental action which restricts rights like assembly and expression (or any other First Amendment right) is subject the strict scrutiny test.

Recently, applying the strict scrutiny test, the Supreme Court recently let stand restrictions imposed by executive order by the State of California that placed limits on public assembly and worship, because the restrictions were facially neutral and applied equally to all assembly and expression; and the state demonstrated that it had a compelling interest in protecting public health, and that the state's restrictions were narrowly tailored to protect public health and justified in light of the science cited in support of the restrictions.

On the other hand, the Court struck down New York State restrictions which effectively shut down religious services while allowing other essential "commercial" activity to be conducted without the restrictions imposed on churches. The Court held that the restrictions on church services were too broad and that, at a bare minimum, church services must be allowed on the same terms as essential commercial activity.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48415
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by kalm »

JoltinJoe wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:28 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:48 am
Again, good post.

What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
The Supreme Court has developed a body of law concerning when a fundamental right may by infringed by the government.

The state may infringe on a fundamental right when it demonstrates (i) that there is a compelling governmental interest in curtailing that right; and (ii) that the state's infringement is no broader than necessary to accomplish its interest. The government must show that its actions are no more restrictive than necessary to advance its compelling interest.

This is called the "strict scrutiny" test. Any governmental action which restricts rights like assembly and expression (or any other First Amendment right) is subject the strict scrutiny test.

Recently, applying the strict scrutiny test, the Supreme Court recently let stand restrictions imposed by executive order by the State of California that placed limits on public assembly and worship, because the restrictions were facially neutral and applied equally to all assembly and expression; and the state demonstrated that it had a compelling interest in protecting public health, and that the state's restrictions were narrowly tailored to protect public health and justified in light of the science cited in support of the restrictions.

On the other hand, the Court struck down New York State restrictions which effectively shut down religious services while allowing other essential "commercial" activity to be conducted without the restrictions imposed on churches. The Court held that the restrictions on church services were too broad and that, at a bare minimum, church services must be allowed on the same terms as essential commercial activity.
Thanks Joe, but isn’t that a legal reconciliation rather than a moral one?

Trying to circle back to the original thrust of the thread.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by AZGrizFan »

kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:48 am
JoltinJoe wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:57 am Yes.

When the individual's right is a fundamental right (for example, free exercise of religion, conscience), that right can diminish the non-fundamental rights of the many.

This is why the Little Sisters of the Poor shouldn't have to pay for their employees' contraceptive insurance coverage.

Free exercise? Fundamental right.

Right to have someone pay for your contraceptives? You may have a strong desire for such coverage, but that "right" isn't fundamental, or not constitutionally protected.

It is also is why a photographer shouldn't be compelled to photograph a gay wedding, based on religious objections. Free exercise is a fundamental right. Your interest having a specific photographer shoot your wedding is not constitutionally protected.

This is the essence of our constitutional system. That an individual's right, even a fundamental right, must be diminished in the interest of the many, is a utilitarian principle common to both Fascism and Communism. [PS -- Ultimately, the "holder" of the "rights of the many," and the party who may enforce the "rights of the many," turns out to the government, when the "rights of the many" are used to outweigh the individual's right]. It is the trademark of every oppressive government that it restricts the rights of the individual in the name of the "many."
Again, good post.

What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
Health is not a right. It’s a responsibility. If you are at risk, stay home. If you’re not, or not a scaredy cat, feel free to assemble, unless you’re a family of 6+ in Canada, then the cops come and storm your house and drag you out by your hair.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
bobbythekidd
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4510
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern
A.K.A.: Bob dammit!!
Location: Savannah GA

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by bobbythekidd »

AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:51 amHealth is not a right.
Are you sure about that? Don't I have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? My life could be ended if some plague rat is couching a virus on me, right?

Along the same vein as when a person has unprotected sex while knowingly infected with aids and the other person doesn't know. That person could be prosecuted. Are they not the same thing?
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by AZGrizFan »

bobbythekidd wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:47 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:51 amHealth is not a right.
Are you sure about that? Don't I have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? My life could be ended if some plague rat is couching a virus on me, right?

Along the same vein as when a person has unprotected sex while knowingly infected with aids and the other person doesn't know. That person could be prosecuted. Are they not the same thing?
Nope. Not even close. We are treating people who are not sick as if they have the virus. Not even close to the same thing.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 10456
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
A.K.A.: Unification88
Location: Fence Sitter & Ball-Sack Splitter

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by UNI88 »

AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:51 am
kalm wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:48 am
Again, good post.

What about pandemic restrictions vs. individual rights. And since this thread started about values how do you morally reconcile fundamental rights like expression and assembly with public health?
Health is not a right. It’s a responsibility. If you are at risk, stay home. If you’re not, or not a scaredy cat, feel free to assemble, unless you’re a family of 6+ in Canada, then the cops come and storm your house and drag you out by your hair.
If you're at risk and stay home should the government provide extended unemployment benefits to cover loss of income?
User avatar
bobbythekidd
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4510
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern
A.K.A.: Bob dammit!!
Location: Savannah GA

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by bobbythekidd »

bobbythekidd wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:47 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:37 pmNope. Not even close. We are treating people who are not sick as if they have the virus. Not even close to the same thing.
But it is close. In fact, it's spot on. You have stated quite a few times that this virus isn't a big deal, since you can have it and not even know it.

And to my other point, do you not agree we have a Constitutionally protected right to life?
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by AZGrizFan »

UNI88 wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:42 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:51 am

Health is not a right. It’s a responsibility. If you are at risk, stay home. If you’re not, or not a scaredy cat, feel free to assemble, unless you’re a family of 6+ in Canada, then the cops come and storm your house and drag you out by your hair.
If you're at risk and stay home should the government provide extended unemployment benefits to cover loss of income?
To a certain point, yes.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by AZGrizFan »

bobbythekidd wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:55 pm But it is close. In fact, it's spot on. You have stated quite a few times that this virus isn't a big deal, since you can have it and not even know it.

And to my other point, do you not agree we have a Constitutionally protected right to life?
Your life is your own. The government doesn’t provide it to you.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48415
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by kalm »

AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:34 pm
bobbythekidd wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:55 pm But it is close. In fact, it's spot on. You have stated quite a few times that this virus isn't a big deal, since you can have it and not even know it.

And to my other point, do you not agree we have a Constitutionally protected right to life?
Your life is your own. The government doesn’t provide it to you.
But it does protect your rights.

If the founders were alive today would they think it’s a right?
Image
Image
Image
JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6966
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by JoltinJoe »

kalm wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:09 am
JoltinJoe wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:28 pm

The Supreme Court has developed a body of law concerning when a fundamental right may by infringed by the government.

The state may infringe on a fundamental right when it demonstrates (i) that there is a compelling governmental interest in curtailing that right; and (ii) that the state's infringement is no broader than necessary to accomplish its interest. The government must show that its actions are no more restrictive than necessary to advance its compelling interest.

This is called the "strict scrutiny" test. Any governmental action which restricts rights like assembly and expression (or any other First Amendment right) is subject the strict scrutiny test.

Recently, applying the strict scrutiny test, the Supreme Court recently let stand restrictions imposed by executive order by the State of California that placed limits on public assembly and worship, because the restrictions were facially neutral and applied equally to all assembly and expression; and the state demonstrated that it had a compelling interest in protecting public health, and that the state's restrictions were narrowly tailored to protect public health and justified in light of the science cited in support of the restrictions.

On the other hand, the Court struck down New York State restrictions which effectively shut down religious services while allowing other essential "commercial" activity to be conducted without the restrictions imposed on churches. The Court held that the restrictions on church services were too broad and that, at a bare minimum, church services must be allowed on the same terms as essential commercial activity.
Thanks Joe, but isn’t that a legal reconciliation rather than a moral one?

Trying to circle back to the original thrust of the thread.
Isn't it both?
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55325
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Values Voters Gaining Strength

Post by AZGrizFan »

kalm wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:08 am
AZGrizFan wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:34 pm

Your life is your own. The government doesn’t provide it to you.
But it does protect your rights.

If the founders were alive today would they think it’s a right?
Does it? :coffee: :coffee:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
Post Reply