Civil Right not a Civil Right

[DocWalker]

BTW. for you guys that don't think the government can not tell you who to sell to and what you can sell. look up the FDR administration a look at what they did.

there are millions of products you can not sell to people even when they were proved harmless

You have missed the discussion, you need to re-read the thread from the start.....

It isn't about what a "Pirvate" buisness can sell. But who they can or can't do buisness with.

We are talking about the goberment telling a "Private" buisness that they HAVE TO sell to say "gay" people but can restrict buisness from "OC'ers.

The questions is "Why is the goverment involved"? Why can the goverment tell you that YOU HAVE sell to a group not covered under the US Constitution but can discriminate against someone that is? (gay vs open carry person).

This is what we are talking about not water fountains and what you can sell.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

DOC my example of the water fountain was to point out bigotry. by law a "private shop" does not have to let anyone in except government inspectors. just try and keep them out and see how long you stay in business. a "private" shop is closed to the general public. the point is we are discussing "public accommodating" business

can you cite me where there is property rights in the USA? again your personal opinion does not count, you can think it is good that a black person can't drink from a white fountain, it still would be wrong

Did you miss this, or just think it didn't apply?

What makes a "courts" opinion any more valid than mine? Where did the courts authority on the subject come from? I fear, they might have just pulled it out of their asses.

That certain unalienable rights exist is an undeniable, observable fact of nature. They are self-evident.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Property rights are not geographically bound. It isn't that "certain places" or "certain people" have rights and others don't. A right is an entitlement granted by a higher power. They are insusceptible to any law or force of man.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Papa Bear, you are basing your assumption on positive law.

This was not the founding of the country was based on the cites were provided.

The natural law or fundamental law is what this country was founded upon. You have a very different definition of what law is.

Jefferson said the courts were not to be the final word, the constitution does not grant judges this power either.

 

[carolina guy]

Papa Bear, you are basing your assumption on positive law.

This was not the founding of the country was based on the cites were provided.

The natural law or fundamental law is what this country was founded upon. You have a very different definition of what law is.

Jefferson said the courts were not to be the final word, the constitution does not grant judges this power either.

+1

 

[papa bear]

You have missed the discussion, you need to re-read the thread from the start.....

It isn't about what a "Pirvate" buisness can sell. But who they can or can't do buisness with.

We are talking about the goberment telling a "Private" buisness that they HAVE TO sell to say "gay" people but can restrict buisness from "OC'ers.

The questions is "Why is the goverment involved"? Why can the goverment tell you that YOU HAVE sell to a group not covered under the US Constitution but can discriminate against someone that is? (gay vs open carry person).

This is what we are talking about not water fountains and what you can sell.

DOC i think you have really missed the point. we are not talking about a "private business" but a business that is a 'public accommodation". i guess my problem is i expect a basic understanding of business.

if you can cite where this right is i would appreciate it

 

[papa bear]

Did you miss this, or just think it didn't apply?


Property rights are not geographically bound. It isn't that "certain places" or "certain people" have rights and others don't. A right is an entitlement granted by a higher power. They are insusceptible to any law or force of man.

Sooo, what you are saying if you didn't have the 2ndA you would be allowed to have a firearm?


can you cite me where this property rights come from? if you can thanks

 

[Freedom1Man]

DOC i think you have really missed the point. we are not talking about a "private business" but a business that is a 'public accommodation". i guess my problem is i expect a basic understanding of business.

if you can cite where this right is i would appreciate it

If it is licensed business then the business is existing with the permission of the licensing agency only.
The agency can require all who hold business licenses to serve anyone the agency wants them to serve. Blacks, whites, illegals, gun owners, etc.

 

[papa bear]

Papa Bear, you are basing your assumption on positive law.

This was not the founding of the country was based on the cites were provided.

The natural law or fundamental law is what this country was founded upon. You have a very different definition of what law is.

Jefferson said the courts were not to be the final word, the constitution does not grant judges this power either.

you are right. i will change my question. again your opinion,or wishful thinking. is like the people saying that we have the right not to be poor. does not exist

can you cite where this right is documented? if you can, thanks

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Sooo, what you are saying if you didn't have the 2ndA you would be allowed to have a firearm?


can you cite me where this property rights come from? if you can thanks

you are right. i will change my question. again your opinion,or wishful thinking. is like the people saying that we have the right not to be poor. does not exist

can you cite where this right is documented? if you can, thanks

Using an opinion to contradict? I cited sources. You want for the right to bear arms....read Blackstone's commentaries on English law, that is what our legal system is based on. I posted the quotes before...but I think you need to look it up and read it yourself.

And yes I'll say I have the right to bear arms with out the second amendment, we already discussed this in this thread the constitution grants no rights, it is a law for the federal government it's shalls and shall nots.

I have the right to wear clothes it isn't in the consitution, I have the right to free speach, the right to express myself, the right to earn a living to provide for myself and loved ones etc.....have you read anything at all on what the constitution is based on or the prevailing theory of natural law the founders expounded upon?

 

[eye95]

you are right. i will change my question. again your opinion,or wishful thinking. is like the people saying that we have the right not to be poor. does not exist

can you cite where this right is documented? if you can, thanks

Rights pre-exist the formation of a society. They represent what you can do if no individual or no state stops you. You can say what you want. You can carry arms to defend yourself. You can practice your religion. You can keep your stuff. You can assault your neighbor and take his stuff to make it yours so you can keep it. (Society is actually created for the purpose of stopping you from doing that last one as a way of protecting your neighbor's right to do the next to the last one.)

You cannot NOT be poor. You can strive not to be poor, you may even succeed, you may even keep up the unpoorness for a long time, but you have no expectation that you will NOT be poor. Therefore, NOT being poor is not a right. The only way that the state can ensure a privilege NOT to be poor is to take from others to give to those destined, because of stupidity or bad luck, to be poor. That is violating the right to keep one's stuff that I mentioned above.

Rights are those things you can do in the absence of the state that would not stop others from doing the things that they can do. Essential rights are properly carried into the formation of the state and are to be protected by a moral state. Those essential rights (Speech, Press, Self-Defense, Association, Due Process, Life, Liberty, Property, etc) are the ones we use to protect the non-essential rights from state intrusion.

Public accommodation laws violate the essential right of association. You have that right to associate. The state may have abridged it. But you have it. You have the RKBA. The state may have infringed on it, but you still have the Right. Rights don't stop being rights when the state immorally chooses to legislate away their practice.

On edit: Rights don't have to be documented. They are a philosophical concept. Either you believe in individual rights to which the state should be subordinated or you believe in tyranny as a proper function of the state.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Sooo, what you are saying if you didn't have the 2ndA you would be allowed to have a firearm?


can you cite me where this property rights come from? if you can thanks

you are right. i will change my question. again your opinion,or wishful thinking. is like the people saying that we have the right not to be poor. does not exist

can you cite where this right is documented? if you can, thanks

First of all, what you're "allowed to do" is an entirely different subject from what you have a "right to do", and I think that you are trying to lump the two together. If I go over to your house, point a gun at your head, and say don't leave, you might say you "aren't allowed" to leave, but you still have the right to leave. You physically won't be able to accomplish the task (assuming you aren't able to defend yourself, which you probably would be able to), but you still have the right. If we did not have a second amendment, or any of the bill of rights, then yes, we would still have the right to keep and bear arms. Would we be allowed to? Who knows. ETA: Many today "aren't allowed" even with the bill of rights.

As far as "where this property right comes from", I will again for the 3rd time post the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[DocWalker]

DOC i think you have really missed the point. we are not talking about a "private business" but a business that is a 'public accommodation". i guess my problem is i expect a basic understanding of business.

if you can cite where this right is i would appreciate it

What right?

I haven't said anything about a right. I said that the government is telling a private business that they can't discriminate but then turn around and tell a business they can discriminate.

Examples I have previously posted.

Government sues a flower shop for not selling flowers to a gay couple (not protected under the US Constitution).

Government says the same flower shop can refuse to sell flowers to an Open Carrier and that is fine. (2A protects our right to carry)

This is what I'm upset about; a business should be allowed to sell to whomever they would like and not be intruded upon by the Government.

It has nothing to do with public places; it also has nothing to do with what right a person has. There is no law or document in the US constitution saying the flower shop has to sell to a gay couple but they are being sued none the less. Can you explain that one?

 

[carolina guy]

What right?

I haven't said anything about a right. I said that the government is telling a private business that they can't discriminate but then turn around and tell a business they can discriminate.

Examples I have previously posted.

Government sues a flower shop for not selling flowers to a gay couple (not protected under the US Constitution).

Government says the same flower shop can refuse to sell flowers to an Open Carrier and that is fine. (2A protects our right to carry)

This is what I'm upset about; a business should be allowed to sell to whomever they would like and not be intruded upon by the Government.

It has nothing to do with public places; it also has nothing to do with what right a person has. There is no law or document in the US constitution saying the flower shop has to sell to a gay couple but they are being sued none the less. Can you explain that one?

They were forced by the State, not the Feds.

 

[DocWalker]

They were forced by the State, not the Feds.

I said goverment, I didn't specify if it was the Federal, State, county, city, or loval goverment. Why are you adding to my post something I didn't specify?

 

[carolina guy]

I said goverment, I didn't specify if it was the Federal, State, county, city, or loval goverment. Why are you adding to my post something I didn't specify?

You did...but when you keep mentioning the US Constitution, that has a general implication for the US Federal Government as it is almost entirely about that "government"...

What right?

I haven't said anything about a right. I said that the government is telling a private business that they can't discriminate but then turn around and tell a business they can discriminate.

Examples I have previously posted.

Government sues a flower shop for not selling flowers to a gay couple (not protected under the US Constitution).

Government says the same flower shop can refuse to sell flowers to an Open Carrier and that is fine. (2A protects our right to carry)

This is what I'm upset about; a business should be allowed to sell to whomever they would like and not be intruded upon by the Government.

It has nothing to do with public places; it also has nothing to do with what right a person has. There is no law or document in the US constitution saying the flower shop has to sell to a gay couple but they are being sued none the less. Can you explain that one?

hence:

They were forced by the State, not the Feds.

However, perhaps a little more precision might not hurt, eh?

BTW: where did I add to your post? To my eyes, it was a reply... (*shrug*)

 

[DocWalker]

You did...but when you keep mentioning the US Constitution, that has a general implication for the US Federal Government as it is almost entirely about that "government"...




hence:



However, perhaps a little more precision might not hurt, eh?

BTW: where did I add to your post? To my eyes, it was a reply... (*shrug*)

If my memory serves me right all 50 states have ratified the US Constitution and do their best to use it as a guide. This is why when there is a lawsuit in a state it can be appealed through the state court system but eventually can fall into the US Supreme Court. This is also why rulings from them end up affecting the state laws and states in general. If I haven't gone entirely senile the US Supreme Court is one of the three separate entities of the Federal system, the others being Legislative (Congress) and Executive (Pres.).

So when a state sues a business they are doing it under the laws of the United States.

As for adding, I was referring to you assuming I was referring to the Federal Government suing and not comprehending that I didn't specify.

I guess I have to have more precision and spoon feed it to you also. Please let me know if you are still having issues with how the government works and I will try to explain it to you, I promise not to use big words.

 

[carolina guy]

If my memory serves me right all 50 states have ratified the US Constitution and do their best to use it as a guide. This is why when there is a lawsuit in a state it can be appealed through the state court system but eventually can fall into the US Supreme Court. This is also why rulings from them end up affecting the state laws and states in general. If I haven't gone entirely senile the US Supreme Court is one of the three separate entities of the Federal system, the others being Legislative (Congress) and Executive (Pres.).

So when a state sues a business they are doing it under the laws of the United States.

As for adding, I was referring to you assuming I was referring to the Federal Government suing and not comprehending that I didn't specify.

I guess I have to have more precision and spoon feed it to you also. Please let me know if you are still having issues with how the government works and I will try to explain it to you, I promise not to use big words.

<sarcasm>Gee thanks...big words are scary! </sarcasm>

BTW: The florist "issue" that I am most recently aware of was a state issue (WA to be specific) and at issue was Washington laws...the Feds were not involved. But, please feel free to read the story or just keep clouding the issue with incorrect information and opinions.

Anyway...it is time to drop this "discussion" as a completely pointless distraction and a waste of electrons.

 

[DocWalker]

<sarcasm>Gee thanks...big words are scary! </sarcasm>

BTW: The florist "issue" that I am most recently aware of was a state issue (WA to be specific) and at issue was Washington laws...the Feds were not involved. But, please feel free to read the story or just keep clouding the issue with incorrect information and opinions.

Anyway...it is time to drop this "discussion" as a completely pointless distraction and a waste of electrons.

I'm surprised to hear you have any electrons.

Please feel free to re-read the part were state laws and how they could end up at the Supreme Court which isn't part of Washigton State. States are not 100% exclusive the State and Federal Goverments are connected, maybe that is what you fail to understand.

Riddle me this Batman......

Why does the Supreme Courts rulings affect states and State laws?

Why did Chicago and the state of IL have to change the STATE LAWS after a rulling from the Supreme Court?

answer is: they are both connected as is the state of WA suing a florist, it could end up in the Supreme Court.

 

[carolina guy]

I'm surprised to hear you have any electrons.

Please feel free to re-read the part were state laws and how they could end up at the Supreme Court which isn't part of Washigton State. States are not 100% exclusive the State and Federal Goverments are connected, maybe that is what you fail to understand.

Riddle me this Batman......

Why does the Supreme Courts rulings affect states and State laws?

Why did Chicago and the state of IL have to change the STATE LAWS after a rulling from the Supreme Court?

answer is: they are both connected as is the state of WA suing a florist, it could end up in the Supreme Court.

This is starting to feel like troll...not certain...but sure starting to feel like it.

To quote eye95: "Moving on now"

 

[DocWalker]

This is starting to feel like troll...not certain...but sure starting to feel like it.

To quote eye95: "Moving on now"

Are you looking in a mirror when you say Troll? You have no good argument so you resort to calling names.....stay classy and as eye95 said "moving on".