Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

First Amendment Question

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

captb13
reply to post by darkbake
 


The first amendment protects your right from the government, not other people. It doesnt apply to those you meet out on the street or forums on the internets.
edit on 4-2-2014 by captb13 because: (no reason given)


Good discussion here all around, and yes true point. A.T.S. does have a TOS, however, that advocates polite conduct.

Although it is definitely a different level of the issue, free speech being enforced by gangs of religious-leaning folk leads me to question their faith a bit, or a lot.

Although I always have a negative reaction to people trying to suppress other people's speech or viewpoint. The liberals were doing it just the other day. It is really just a product of different cultural conditioning, all-around, and the whole point is to make it so people get along better - there is always going to be an opposing side, and it is less annoying if views aren't suppressed during the back-and-forth.

On another note, I was interested in what people thought about the intent of the amendment, your point is a good one, but if the amendment did apply to businesses, what would its intent be. It does apply somewhat already in anti-discrimination laws.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The first amendment to me means that our president can't have the IRS target a group because of the things that they say which travel fast enough to reach him and then he retaliates against them using his enforcement division to infringe upon them not to exercise their rights in that manner, or else..., It means he can't do this, but he does it anyway being above the law and all that stuff befitting a small and pouting spoiled child.

but since all of these controls put in place to stop government infringement doesn't apply to our president and neither do any other laws apply to him, I don't have a clue what to do.. Hope his wife beans him on the head with a claw hammer? Not sure. Maybe she already did..So now, just Sit back and watch the puppet show. He leads by example, so quite a few are now dishonoring this 1st amendment.. Which one is next? Will they all be ignored in numerical order, or will they (All of them) play musical chairs with our rights? Do these rights really exist? Really? Can we place bets in Vegas about this? Might as well have fun on the way to the disintegration station..
edit on 4-2-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 





You guys do realize that by supporting this kind of thing you are looking like you are trying to strong-arm your beliefs onto others, right? And that they don't have merit on their own without this kind of destructive support behind them?


So how is that any different than writing laws to strong arm rich people,gun owners, and the rest?

That all have 'destructive support' behind them.

Guess it only matters when it's gays and single mothers.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
"Congress shall make no law…" Had that been the last line, immediately followed by the signatures, we would all be better off.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 



Who here thinks this gives you the right to suppress other people's thoughts and opinions because they don't agree with your own? The argument here would be that because you have free speech, you are free to harass others and shut them down if they have different viewpoints. The drawback to this would be that you might not be able to express your own opinions without being harassed.


I have free speech. I take that to mean that I can freely express my opinion on a myriad of topics. Other people also have the right to free speech. That means that, if I say something, other people have the right to critisize my opinion.

Basically, I can have a contrary opinion to your own, and you do not have the authority to stop me from expressing my thoughts, and vice versa.


Who here thinks that this amendment grants free speech?


I don't. I think that we are all born with the rights listed in amendments 1-10. They are inherently ours by our nature alone, the amendments are only listing my rights for easy reference. If someone repealed those amendments, the reference is gone, but the rights are still inherently mine.

And yours.



The argument here would be that it is impossible for everyone to have the same opinion and views as you, therefore you should tolerate other viewpoints and have open discussions. The advantage here would be that you could also express your own opinions.


Yes, that is the point. And if someone tells you to shut up and sit down, you can ignore them. And if someone tells you to shut up and sit down, and then tries to force you to do so--you can use violence to stop them.


Now on to religion. Who thinks the First Amendment gives the right to establish a religion / philosophy and harass people who have different belief systems than you, even going so far as to deny basic services such as medical care.


We have freedom of religion because all humans have the right to form their own beliefs regarding their existence, whether someone else agrees with their point of view or not. Whether their beliefs are true or false.

If I am paying for your medical care, you will do what I say because I am footing the bill. If you don't like it, then pay for your own medical care. If you are providing for your own medical care and someone tries to stop you from obtaining medical services--simply because the service goes against their religious views--you can use violence to stop them.


Who thinks that the First Amendment gives someone the right to practice their own religion / philosophy and still receive basic services like medical care.


A doctor takes a Hippocratic oath to serve everyone. That would include people whose views they disagree with. A more specific example would be helpful to clarify your position.


What is the advantage to denying someone else medical care with different opinions than your own? Is the advantage that you don't have to be around such filth? Or is the advantage that you can force them to change their views by denying them access to basic human rights?


It would depend on the context. Give us a more specific example.


Is it more mature to deny someone basic services because they think differently than you, or to be strong enough to interact with people who have different views?


Obviously it is more mature to be strong enough to interact with people who have different views than your own.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

captb13
reply to post by darkbake
 


The first amendment protects your right from the government, not other people. It doesnt apply to those you meet out on the street or forums on the internets.
edit on 4-2-2014 by captb13 because: (no reason given)


If another person tells me to shut up and sit down, and then tries to force me to--then yes, in my opinion, they have just voluntarily given up their right not to be physically assaulted.

Whether that's a government employee, or just some dude on the street,



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   

neo96
reply to post by darkbake
 





You guys do realize that by supporting this kind of thing you are looking like you are trying to strong-arm your beliefs onto others, right? And that they don't have merit on their own without this kind of destructive support behind them?


So how is that any different than writing laws to strong arm rich people,gun owners, and the rest?

That all have 'destructive support' behind them.



It isn't any different. I am starting to see that conservatives and liberals have different forces behind them, with conservatives being more physical oriented and liberals being more intellectually oriented, however destructive is destructive and constructive is constructive.

So these strong-arm tactics, that is what I don't like myself - it isn't the conservative part. I also do tend to prefer discussion to outright slaughter or starving someone or denying medical coverage to get what you want from them - but that is because those latter things represent extremism.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also don't like extremist intellectualism, to the point where it is being used as a tool to stop growth, too.
edit on 05amWed, 05 Feb 2014 05:12:07 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Not sure if this has been said yet but I think it is important to remember the intent of the Constitution and especially the entire "Bill of Rights"

NOT to grant us any freedoms

But to limit the Governments intrusion on the freedoms we all inherently possess..

Sometimes people start thinking the Constitution gives us rights and that is just wrong




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

semperfortis
Not sure if this has been said yet but I think it is important to remember the intent of the Constitution and especially the entire "Bill of Rights"

NOT to grant us any freedoms

But to limit the Governments intrusion on the freedoms we all inherently possess..

Sometimes people start thinking the Constitution gives us rights and that is just wrong



Perfectly correct. The founders were wary of government having risked everything and lost a great deal in order to successfully free themselves of Monarchy and Dictatorship. Prior to the revolution people could, and often were, put to death for simply speaking ill of the king.

The "Bill of rights" articulates what rights "endowed by our creator"...(not Gov.) that the founders specifically thought it wise to LIMIT governments intrusion upon.

It is a horrible error in thinking to equate this with "granting" rights...which is premised on the concept that government is omnipotent...and the precise opposite of what the founders intent was.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

darkbake


That is rather basic - but yes, in general, the Bill of Rights are supposed to increase our freedoms, not give license to harass them. And yes, I think the poorly educated plays a part in this, as well.


I think you are struggling with defining freedoms? The Bill of Rights, by design, is intended to protect even those that ...at least verbally..."harass" those that they disagree with.

Put another way...I vehemently oppose every bit of the rhetoric and ideology of White Supremests, and yet if the government decided to forbid them from gathering or ban them from speaking their ignorance and hate, I would reluctantly find myself vehemently opposed to those government actions and fighting for those White Supremests right to speak their ignorance....because it is not the governments right to decide what the people think, speak or debate publicly.

Now...If you are bemoaning the state of our national discourse, and the fact that people do not engage other respectfully, or actually listen well to opinions that don't affirm their own...I agree.

But tolerance, respect, healthy debate and discourse, is not and should not be legislated.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
First off, when I think of a true right, it is something you have that is intrinsic to you and does not impose any obligation on anyone else for you to have it.

You have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness ... you have the right to speech, assembly, religion, self-defense, any property you earn or provide for yourself.

Governments cannot give you those things; they can only seek to deny or oppress them.

Things that society grants or government gives you are no more than civil rights although I prefer the term civil privileges. What government or society gives; it can also take. Those things can impose obligation on you or others in order for you to have them. Your right to an attorney is one. The attorney is someone who is imposed upon for you to have that "right." And that "right" only lasts so long as our government decides it does.

So ...

When it comes to denial of service and you claim that no one has the right to deny service, you want to impose an obligation on all the people who provide a service that they are instantly obligated to do any kind of work at the back and call of anyone else. We used to have that institution in the United States. It was one of the central issues in a war. You might have heard of it - the Civil War.

You see, when you claim that medical professional (or any other professional) has no right to deny their personal services for any reason, what you are really saying is that because they have a service that others want, they are now slaves to the whims of society rather than masters of their own skills and services to dispense as they see fit.

So, you have to decide, which is more important to you - an individual's right to control their own services and how they dispense them or society's need to feel that everything has the veneer of being "fair."



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


One person's freedom ends where another begins. Simple as that.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

nixie_nox
reply to post by darkbake
 


One person's freedom ends where another begins. Simple as that.


Sounds very simple, but it's not.

Photographer has freedom of religion and is asked to go to a homosexual wedding and be the photographer. Photographer feels this violates conscience. Photographer says no. Photographer is sued for violating rights of homosexual couple.

Where did the rights of the homosexual couple end and the rights of the photographer begin?

Do they get compel the photographer? Wouldn't that imply that their rights are then extending to override the photographer's own personal ones (including religious freedom)?

But if the photographer denies service, is the photographer extending his right of religion to impose on them?

How do you draw that line without having someone's rights trampled on?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

ketsuko

nixie_nox
reply to post by darkbake
 


One person's freedom ends where another begins. Simple as that.


Sounds very simple, but it's not.

Photographer has freedom of religion and is asked to go to a homosexual wedding and be the photographer. Photographer feels this violates conscience. Photographer says no. Photographer is sued for violating rights of homosexual couple.

Where did the rights of the homosexual couple end and the rights of the photographer begin?



everyone's rights remain intact in this scenario.

The photographer chose not to do his job...which is his right.

Did he get paid in advance? Did he return the money? Did he know in advance that he would not take the pictures, but waited until the actual ceremony to tell them?

All legal questions in the potential law-suit you describe....but his rights and the couples rights...nothing to do with it.

They have the right to marry.
He has the right not to take pictures.
If he screwed up their wedding by not doing his job (regardless of reason) then that is a separate issue.
If he didn't return the money, if it cost the couple extra-money to replace him at the last minute etc...all separate issues.

everybody's "freedom" intact.

The only way that anyone's freedom would be damaged would be...
(A) If the Gov. demanded that he take the photographs!
(B) The gov. told the gay couple they couldn't get their money back because they are gay!

Etc.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

ketsuko

nixie_nox
reply to post by darkbake
 


One person's freedom ends where another begins. Simple as that.


Sounds very simple, but it's not.

Photographer has freedom of religion and is asked to go to a homosexual wedding and be the photographer. Photographer feels this violates conscience. Photographer says no. Photographer is sued for violating rights of homosexual couple.

Where did the rights of the homosexual couple end and the rights of the photographer begin?

Do they get compel the photographer? Wouldn't that imply that their rights are then extending to override the photographer's own personal ones (including religious freedom)?

But if the photographer denies service, is the photographer extending his right of religion to impose on them?

How do you draw that line without having someone's rights trampled on?



Religious rights don't get to trump law.

Just like you can't go out and kill somebody and claim it is a religious right. Because their religious observances doesn't get to trump law. The Civil Rights Act protects the couple from discrimination. You can't discriminate even if it is hidden by religion.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

nixie_nox

ketsuko

nixie_nox
reply to post by darkbake
 


One person's freedom ends where another begins. Simple as that.


Sounds very simple, but it's not.

Photographer has freedom of religion and is asked to go to a homosexual wedding and be the photographer. Photographer feels this violates conscience. Photographer says no. Photographer is sued for violating rights of homosexual couple.

Where did the rights of the homosexual couple end and the rights of the photographer begin?

Do they get compel the photographer? Wouldn't that imply that their rights are then extending to override the photographer's own personal ones (including religious freedom)?

But if the photographer denies service, is the photographer extending his right of religion to impose on them?

How do you draw that line without having someone's rights trampled on?



Religious rights don't get to trump law.

Just like you can't go out and kill somebody and claim it is a religious right. Because their religious observances doesn't get to trump law. The Civil Rights Act protects the couple from discrimination. You can't discriminate even if it is hidden by religion.


So, see my post above.

In your eyes, it more important that society preserve the veneer that everything is "fair" than that our inalienable rights are protected.

You would rather that someone's services be at society's beck and call, thus turning people into slaves of the state, than that people remain masters of the services they freely provide to others for whatever medium of exchange is mutually acceptable to all parties involved.

Do you also support forcing all butchers to handle and sell bacon? Do you think that a homosexual should be forced to render services to the Phelps clan? How about an African-American to the local chapter of the KKK?

People who choose to provide their services to others for money should be allowed to pick and choose how that exchange takes place otherwise they are nothing more than slaves to the whim of society.
edit on 5-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Here is a simple way of looking at it.

Should a business ever say WE DON'T SERVE YOUR KIND?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Here is a simple way of looking at it.

Should a business ever say WE DON'T SERVE YOUR KIND?


They do in Star Wars.


But, would you make a black man serve the KKK?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


1215 The Magna Carta

1689 The English Bill Of Rights

America's First Amendment

All guaranteed Freedom Of Speech.

Today, they are not worth the paper they where written on.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

ketsuko

Grimpachi
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Here is a simple way of looking at it.

Should a business ever say WE DON'T SERVE YOUR KIND?


They do in Star Wars.


But, would you make a black man serve the KKK?


Show me how this is about offering services or joining groups that they either do not already offer or are not already part of.


No one is making a baker build a house or mechanic bake a cake but if a heart surgeon says he will not perform heart surgery on someone because of they don't like that persons race creed personal lifestyle or religion then that surgeon should be disbarred.

You are convoluting the subject and trying to equate things that are not equatable.

We are not saying you can go to KFC and demand that they cook you a burger, but they better damn well serve that chicken to anyone who is willing to pay for it. Would you disagree with that?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join