Liberty Lost

[BlueHen86]

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.

If you follow your concept of LIBERTY though to it's logical conclusion things would be chaotic and uncivilized. Rules are part of what make us civilized, and rules mean a loss of LiBeRtY.

[BlueHen86]

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.

The liberty that JSO is talking about is more than just "forced commerce". If you're going to join the discussion try and stay on point.

[kalm]

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.

"Zog sell Thag mammoth tusk powder or Thag smash Zog"

(Thag kids stay with grandparents tonight)

[houndawg]

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.

Get outta here!

[houndawg]

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.

There you have it folks. Cannibalism is legal if you go to the right church, says so right there in the Constitution.

/thread

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

Yoo-hoo! Someone else could open up another store if there was such a demand.

I agree with JSO...the government should not force people to do business with others.

[kalm]

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.

Yoo-hoo! Someone else could open up another store if there was such a demand.

I agree with JSO...the government should not force people to do business with others.

Or they could close down stores (both their own and via monopoly) if their religion told them too. The "free market" doesn't fix everything, Cluck.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yoo-hoo! Someone else could open up another store if there was such a demand.

I agree with JSO...the government should not force people to do business with others.

Or they could close down stores (both their own and via monopoly) if their religion told them too. The "free market" doesn't fix everything, Cluck.

Of course they could close down stores (on their own or via monopoly) if their religion told them to...and anyone could close down stores (on their own or via monopoly) for any other reason. That stuff happens all the time these days. Check out Main Street all across America...a McDonald's on every corner forcing Mom and Pop burger to close, Home Depot putting smaller hardware stores out of business, WalMart putting everyone out of business. People are voting with their wallets. The world is funny that way.

What's your point?

[kalm]

Or they could close down stores (both their own and via monopoly) if their religion told them too. The "free market" doesn't fix everything, Cluck.

Of course they could close down stores (on their own or via monopoly) if their religion told them to...and anyone could close down stores (on their own or via monopoly) for any other reason. That stuff happens all the time these days. Check out Main Street all across America...a McDonald's on every corner forcing Mom and Pop burger to close, Home Depot putting smaller hardware stores out of business, WalMart putting everyone out of business. People are voting with their wallets. The world is funny that way.

What's your point?

Markets need rules and as 86 suggested, there are limits to constitutional rights. Btw, you do realize why Brewer vetoed this right? Hint...$'s...so I guess the market worked after all!

[BlueHen86]

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.

Yoo-hoo! Someone else could open up another store if there was such a demand.

I agree with JSO...the government should not force people to do business with others.

What happens if they open a store, but can't stock their shelves because nobody will sell to them? What happens if everybody decides to discriminate? Do we have a Methodist only gas station? A Jewish only grocery store? Whites only restaurants?

We tried the whites only idea already, it didn't work.

You have lots of liberty, you can live were you want, work where you want and have the friends that you want. But if you chose to open a business there are certain rules that you have to follow. Licenses, insurance, taxes are all things that the government may require. Anti-discrimination is just another item on the list. Maybe it is a loss of liberty, but it's a liberty that we should be happy to do without.

[BDKJMU]

Yoo-hoo! Someone else could open up another store if there was such a demand.

I agree with JSO...the government should not force people to do business with others.

What happens if they open a store, but can't stock their shelves because nobody will sell to them? What happens if everybody decides to discriminate? Do we have a Methodist only gas station? A Jewish only grocery store? Whites only restaurants?

We tried the whites only idea already, it didn't work.

You have lots of liberty, you can live were you want, work where you want and have the friends that you want. But if you chose to open a business there are certain rules that you have to follow. Licenses, insurance, taxes are all things that the government may require. Anti-discrimination is just another item on the list. Maybe it is a loss of liberty, but it's a liberty that we should be happy to do without.

After the fed govt & courts got involved. For some people it was working fine. For others, not.

[BlueHen86]

What happens if they open a store, but can't stock their shelves because nobody will sell to them? What happens if everybody decides to discriminate? Do we have a Methodist only gas station? A Jewish only grocery store? Whites only restaurants?

We tried the whites only idea already, it didn't work.

You have lots of liberty, you can live were you want, work where you want and have the friends that you want. But if you chose to open a business there are certain rules that you have to follow. Licenses, insurance, taxes are all things that the government may require. Anti-discrimination is just another item on the list. Maybe it is a loss of liberty, but it's a liberty that we should be happy to do without.

After the fed govt & courts got involved. For some people it was working fine. For others, not.

Most people are happy when they get to do what they want. Unfortunately, sometimes what I want to do negatively impacts what you want to do and a line must be drawn. We disagree where to draw the line, that's part of the reason why we have a court system.

[kalm]

What happens if they open a store, but can't stock their shelves because nobody will sell to them? What happens if everybody decides to discriminate? Do we have a Methodist only gas station? A Jewish only grocery store? Whites only restaurants?

We tried the whites only idea already, it didn't work.

You have lots of liberty, you can live were you want, work where you want and have the friends that you want. But if you chose to open a business there are certain rules that you have to follow. Licenses, insurance, taxes are all things that the government may require. Anti-discrimination is just another item on the list. Maybe it is a loss of liberty, but it's a liberty that we should be happy to do without.

After the fed govt & courts got involved. For some people it was working fine. For others, not.

Which brings up the non-constitutional point that if you're in business and want to exclude someone based on religion, race, sexual orientation, etc...you're as big of a dumbass as JSO's MiL.

[Chizzang]

Liberties come and Liberties go...
Some we get to keep others we lose / Been happening since organized society began

Julian Assange has an opinion on Liberty
Vladimir Putin has an opinion on Liberty
Abe Lincoln had an opinion on Liberty
Hitler had an opinion on Liberty
Jefferson had an opinion

everybody's got one...

Next:

[kalm]

Liberties come and Liberties go...
Some we get to keep others we lose / Been happening since organized society began

Julian Assange has an opinion on Liberty
Vladimir Putin has an opinion on Liberty
Abe Lincoln had an opinion on Liberty
Hitler had an opinion on Liberty
Jefferson had an opinion

everybody's got one...

Next:

I deny your liberty to declare a thread dead.

[dbackjon]

What happens if they open a store, but can't stock their shelves because nobody will sell to them? What happens if everybody decides to discriminate? Do we have a Methodist only gas station? A Jewish only grocery store? Whites only restaurants?

We tried the whites only idea already, it didn't work.

You have lots of liberty, you can live were you want, work where you want and have the friends that you want. But if you chose to open a business there are certain rules that you have to follow. Licenses, insurance, taxes are all things that the government may require. Anti-discrimination is just another item on the list. Maybe it is a loss of liberty, but it's a liberty that we should be happy to do without.

After the fed govt & courts got involved. For some people it was working fine. For others, not.

Just when I think you're White supremistism can't get a more blatant wow

[dbackjon]

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.

If you were Rich Mle and White yeah it existed hundred years ago

For everyone else you're out of luck

But Christian Male and White is all you give a shit about anyway correct

[JohnStOnge]

There you have it folks. Cannibalism is legal if you go to the right church, says so right there in the Constitution

I think that cannibalism might involve a direct attack on somebody else. What we're talking about here is, for example, forcing someone to choose between keeping the business they love and remaining true to their religious beliefs so that a couple of homosexuals don't have to go down the street to hire another photographer.

[JohnStOnge]

But if you chose to open a business there are certain rules that you have to follow. Licenses, insurance, taxes are all things that the government may require.

You know, it's a much broader subject area but I do think we incorrectly treat engaging in commerce on the selling side as though it is a privilege rather than a right. It's a right; and it 's a right that has been infringed upon an awful lot.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think that cannibalism might involve a direct attack on somebody else.

Not necessarily. If they died of natural causes and it was consensual cannibalism.

Also, transubstantiation. But, noone takes all that shit literally, right?

[BDKJMU]

After the fed govt & courts got involved. For some people it was working fine. For others, not.

Just when I think you're White supremistism can't get a more blatant wow

I expected as much from the king of hyperbole..

I didn't say it was right. It was a wrong, racist practice on the part of a lot of people. If they tried the same today, it would be so bad for business for most that it would put them out of business. But if they want to do something that is racist and bad for their own business, it should be their right.

And if the fed govt & courts hadn't stepped in in the 60s it would have ended on its own anyway by the 80s..