It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: Metallicus
But that doesn't extend to being verbally attacked against their will? because all these arguments aren't people upset because they can't refuse service to a group of people, the right to refuse service has never been the issue because it's never changed. These are people that are upset that they can't be abusive AFTER they've refused service.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MystikMushroom
BULLSNIP!
We don't have Rights because of the government or because of men, we have governments to defend the sanctity of our God-given rights from the violations and intrusions of man.
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The forefathers didn't agree that we "have" those rights, they observed that God had granted all men those rights and that any government based outside of the same was a pile of crap, doomed to failure.
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TrueBrit
I am NOT defending the beliefs I am saying people shouldn't FORCE other people to do what THEY think it right. You either are okay with forcing your beliefs on others or you are not.
I will NEVER force another human being to do something against their will.
You guys are supporting Authoritarianism.
originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: ketsuko
You can tell them no! Thats what i've been telling you, that you're perfectly justified to tell them no. I was under the impression that you're arguing that you have a right to tell them no AND belittle them after telling them no, which I disagree with. So what is the argument here?
originally posted by: Metallicus
A HUMAN has the right to do whatever they want whenever they want provided it doesn't harm another person or their property. Now, this doesn't mean they might not get their feelings hurt because I don't care about that or what someone 'feels' I am talking in terms of what I believe is right and wrong.
originally posted by: Metallicus
If a person wishes to interact with another person they have the right to do that or not at their discretion. They SHOULD NOT be REQUIRED to interact with anyone against their will. If you don't agree with the behavior YOU have the right to NOT SHOP or frequent their establishment or business. This way NO ONE is being forced to do anything against their will and you have the ability to discourage the demerit behavior by applying or not applying your dollars.
originally posted by: Metallicus
This is my pragmatic view of how life SHOULD be...certainly not how it is right now. I believe that personal liberty is the most important thing...more important than society and more important than the Government.
originally posted by: Metallicus
You might say that if you are doing business then the Government can dictate what you do and I would strongly disagree. The Government should stay out of all transactions between consenting adults. If people want to buy and sell drugs then I don't believe it should be illegal if the two parties are in agreement.
originally posted by: Metallicus
The problem as I see it is we have become to used to letting Government dictate our daily lives and allowing them to be involved in our transactions and commerce. They need to stay out of our lives and stick to the common defense.
originally posted by: Metallicus
Anyway, I don't care if I am unpopular I simply believe that personal freedom is more important than your society.
A HUMAN has the right to do whatever they want whenever they want provided it doesn't harm another person or their property.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ketsuko
A kosher deli does not stock or have access to supply chains which include non kosher products. The difference being, that cakes are cakes. Their shape is irrelevant.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: MystikMushroom
Lack of belief in God is a relatively new thing, dude. All of the cultures you listed were recipients of their own Creator's bestowed rights.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: schuyler
I don't think the OP is so much about whether or not we can now, but how it should be. The law should not discriminate, and quite frankly, anti-discrimination laws do discriminate because they clearly do not list every single category of person that should be protected from discrimination which is to say everyone should be or none should be as all should be treated the same under the law.
So if the law singles out some, it discriminates and is (or should be) invalid.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: schuyler
I don't think the OP is so much about whether or not we can now, but how it should be. The law should not discriminate, and quite frankly, anti-discrimination laws do discriminate because they clearly do not list every single category of person that should be protected from discrimination which is to say everyone should be or none should be as all should be treated the same under the law.
So if the law singles out some, it discriminates and is (or should be) invalid.
Name one person NOT protected by race (whites are included), sex (males are included), religion (Christians are included), sexual orientation (heterosexuals are included), and gender identity (male, female and Trans are included).
So where EXACTLY is someone not included?