First Amendment Question

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

Then I apologize for coming into the conversation sounding very crass. I run into many that don't make the distinction between public and private. I assumed too much and apologize for that.

bmullini
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

Then I apologize for coming into the conversation sounding very crass. I run into many that don't make the distinction between public and private. I assumed too much and apologize for that.

It's all good friend, I could have been more explicit when I was giving my opinion.

I also have the tendency to jump the gun sometimes as well. Our passions are tied up in our ideologies and principles, there is nothing wrong with that.

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

I wish I could give you 1 million stars for this. That is exactly the idea I was trying to communicate in my post, and I think you expressed it very well.

reply to post by Grimpachi

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?

I would vehemently disagree.

My profession, as Ketsuko pointed out, does not hang on the whims of society. That is tyranny. I, and I alone, am master of my labor. As a programmer, if I choose not to right code for anyone of my choosing, for any reason of my choosing--that is my right to do so. I do not have to perform for you simply because you demand it.

If I choose not to right code for Asians, then I won't. If society trumps my decision and forces me to, how is that any different than involuntary servitude? Using the government to force me to is despotic.

Ketsuko was not saying anything about demanding that a person in one profession should be forced to offer services outside of that profession. He was saying that people should not be forced to serve anyone they choose not to, because that is involuntary servitude.

Which would also include an African American professional choosing not to serve members of the KKK. It would be that person's right not to offer them services--or, to kick them out of their place of business.

If a racist opened a restaurant and did not want to serve blacks, that would be their right not to do so. If a black man opened a restaurant and did not want to serve known members of the KKK, that would be his right not to do so. Following your logic, we would have to force both of them to go against their wishes. In either case, whether we agree or disagree with them, forcing them to serve is just another form of slavery.

Why is it OK to force an individual to provide services within the scope of their profession if they choose not to? How is that not a form of slavery??

reply to post by Grimpachi

Otherwise if it does go to court your reasoning better not be based on a demographic to infringe on peoples BASIC civil rights. And you better have a sign.

OK. I am a programmer. As a programmer, why is it someone's "basic civil right" to force me to write software for them if I don't want to based on their race?

How is forcing someone to labor against their will, regardless of their reasoning for not wanting to provide the service, a basic civil right? I see an assumption here, the assumption being that we possess a right to goods and services. We don't. If we did, all goods and services would simply be ours for the taking, but they are not.

These anti-discrimination laws, as most "good intentions" tend to be, are inherently flawed. There is no logic backing them other than "I don't like your ideals so I am going to use government to force you to conform to my ideas of what constitutes 'rightness'."

reply to post by Grimpachi

If said doctor performed abortions he would have no right to refuse to perform them

WHY?

Why is that OK?

And before you say "It's the LAW!" I understand this fact. I want to know, philosophically, why this particular law is reasonable from your perspective?

Let this be known to all that say Christians are bigots... When the Bible says to Love Thy Neighbor, this means to show love and compassion to your fellow humans. This DOES NOT mean that we must condone every act that another partakes in. Consider this: Good and Evil are real in this world. Everyone has experienced a little or a lot of both. If Good and Evil are real, then there are clear definitions to what they are. For Christians, the Bible is a great text to make this distinction. Religious individuals don't hate sinners, they hate the sin. There is a difference between hypocrisy and disagreeing with another's lifestyle choices.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


We live in an organized society, or civilization, hence the term "civil" rights. Part of our civil rights is equality under the law. We make these laws to ensure that all are treated equally. It is how we have decided to live in our society.

If you offer goods and services to the public, you are part of that society, or civil structure - therefore you must adhere to the laws that ensure that all are treated equally. If you don't like that, I suppose you could move to another society that doesn't believe in treating people equally, but you may not like it because YOU may end up the one who is not treated equal to everyone else - and there would be nothing you could do about it.

The assumption is not that we have a right to goods and services, it is the assumption that we all have a right to purchase goods and services. Same thing with the whole "right to bear arms" idea. Doesn't mean we have a right to free guns, it means we have a right to purchase guns.

reply to post by kaylaluv

If you offer goods and services to the public, you are part of that society, or civil structure - therefore you must adhere to the laws that ensure that all are treated equally.

Why?

If you don't like that, I suppose you could move to another society that doesn't believe in treating people equally

Yeah, this is 'Murrica!

but you may not like it because YOU may end up the one who is not treated equal to everyone else - and there would be nothing you could do about it.

So?

Here's the difference between you and I. I am not a whiny child. If someone refused to serve me for whatever whimsical reason, I would just find what I wanted someplace else.

Tada. Problem solved.

The assumption is not that we have a right to goods and services, it is the assumption that we all have a right to purchase goods and services.

No. It is the assumption that you have a right to goods and services, even if you are purchasing them. Because you are still forcing someone to perform against their will. In that context, you are abusing the rights of another person. You don't actually have the right to force someone to serve you. Especially in today's world when you could find service someplace else.

Same thing with the whole "right to bear arms" idea. Doesn't mean we have a right to free guns, it means we have a right to purchase guns.

You have the right to purchase whatever you want, but I also have the right not to do business with you for whatever reason I choose.

neo96

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.

The constitution is a protection of the people from government, and the people from themselves.

The first amendment is part of the constitution.

People have the freedom of religion, and people are free to either agree or disagree with it, but that is where it begins and ends.

All right's are create equal, and no one( not even government) has the right to diminish the rights of anyone else.

The original poster is correct. You are quite wrong here, though it is a common misunderstanding. The First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from passing any laws that infringe on free speech. It DOES NOT protect "the people from themselves." The phrase "no one (not even the government) has the right to diminish the rights of anyone else" is also NOT TRUE. In fact, the ONLY part of that phrase that is true is "the government." It is not so much "not even the government' as it is "only the government."

Example One: If you are in my house and start spouting speech I do not like, I can kick you out of the house and off my property. Your free speech "rights' do not extend to my property, but are applicable only on public property.

Example Two: If you work for my company, I can put in place workplace rules that prevent you from, say, "bad-mouthing your supervisor." If you do so, I can fire you for cause. Your "free speech rights" do not extend to the workplace, which is private property.

Example Three: ATS can make any rule it wants about subjects that can or cannot be discussed on these boards. They can also establish penalties, including banishment, for violating these rules. If they were to say, "You cannot discuss the color 'purple' on ATS." and you violate that and discuss the color purple, you can be banned. this is not a violation of your right to free speech because this is a privately-owned board.

Example Four: Your speech can be constrained in many ways without violating your rights. You cannot falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example, because of the mayhem that would ensue. Courts have ruled many times that such behavior is not covered by your right to free speech.

The overall point here is that your "right to free speech" is not a blanket right that covers everything that comes out of your mouth. It applies ONLY to the US Congress.

Thank you, however, for pointing out that it a part of the Constitution. Perhaps some people did not realize that.

LewsTherinThelamon


Here's the difference between you and I. I am not a whiny child. If someone refused to serve me for whatever whimsical reason, I would just find what I wanted someplace else.

Tada. Problem solved.

But what if no matter where you went, everyone refused to serve you, simply because you are you. What would you do then? If it's okay for one business to refuse to serve you, then it's okay for all businesses to refuse to serve you, right? You okay with that?

No. It is the assumption that you have a right to goods and services, even if you are purchasing them. Because you are still forcing someone to perform against their will. In that context, you are abusing the rights of another person. You don't actually have the right to force someone to serve you. Especially in today's world when you could find service someplace else.

But you don't seem to get that by theoretically allowing one business to refuse service, you are allowing ALL businesses to refuse service. Is that okay? If it's not okay, how do we decide which businesses get to refuse service and which ones don't?

reply to post by kaylaluv

But what if no matter where you went, everyone refused to serve you, simply because you are you. What would you do then? If it's okay for one business to refuse to serve you, then it's okay for all businesses to refuse to serve you, right? You okay with that?

Am I OK with that? Do you realize how very awesome that would be? Do you realize how much money I could make by opening a competing business that serves everyone, including people like myself?

If every Italian restaurant in my area refused to serve me for reason X, I could open an Italian restaurant and serve everyone, including individuals who would get barred from the other restaurants for reason X.

That would be like a dream come true. All those other companies just gave me guaranteed business. And, they would eventually wind up going out of business themselves as they would not be able to compete with me. Either that, or they would have to quickly change their stance.

I could even charge lower rates as a double-blow. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

But you don't seem to get that by theoretically allowing one business to refuse service, you are allowing ALL businesses to refuse service.

I understand that just fine, and for the reasons I stated above, I would be perfectly OK with it. Where you see oppression, I see opportunity.

Is that okay?

Yes. I do not have the right to force someone to serve me.

If it's not okay, how do we decide which businesses get to refuse service and which ones don't?

It is OK, and we do not get to make those kinds of decisions for people. I own my labor, you do not, and the community does not either. The law certainly exists in your favor, but it's existence is not evidence of, and does not support, the "moral justness" of the philosophy itself.

reply to post by schuyler

The original poster is correct. You are quite wrong here,

I am not even CLOSE to being wrong.

Another person has exactly ZERO authority over me. as I have no authority over them.

Some people either chose to run to LEO or government instead.

That is where that constitution comes in to play.

Might want to read the 9th and 10th amendments there:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

www.archives.gov...

bmullini
reply to post by alldaylong

 

The statement is not a catch 22. The premise of my statement is that the first amendment is shrouded in the belief that you should be able to speak of injustice and tyranny when you see it.

The inhabitants of the American colonies where British subjects. The Bill Of Rights 1689 and it's subsequent successors gave them the right to speak out against injustice and tyranny as you call it.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


No, it's just you that is not being served. Everyone else is, but not you. No one will sell you anything. You can't even buy products wholesale to sell to yourself. Whatcha gonna do then? If everyone has the right to not sell anything to you - you can't do a thing about it.

neo96
reply to post by schuyler

 

The original poster is correct. You are quite wrong here,

I am not even CLOSE to being wrong.

Another person has exactly ZERO authority over me. as I have no authority over them.

You are so wrong that it is painful to observe, and your insistence on the rightness of your beliefs is laughable. My examples--all of them (and many more)--are rock solid. What you do not seem to understand is that the Bill of Rights is specifically designed to prevent GOVERNMENT from infringing on the rights of the people. That does not prevent me from the right to kick you off my property if I don't approve of your speech where, indeed, I do have authority over you. The same is true of the workplace, on these boards, or even in public as I have enumerated in my post above.

Let's say I did these things to you--all of them. I kicked you off my property, prevented your "free speech" at work, and banned you from this board. What could you do? If you put your money where your mouth is you would sue me on constitutional grounds claiming I infringed on your free speech. And do you know what would happen?

Your suit would be thrown out of court.

That's a fact. Check it out. Your free speech rights are not what you think they are, and you're continuing to bluster about it simply puts your delusions on display in public. And that's something you DO have the right to do, at least here.

reply to post by schuyler

That does not prevent me from the right to kick you off my property if I don't approve of your speech where, indeed, I do have authority over you.

Where do you think those property rights come from eh ?

WHERE ?

Have anything other than trying to use red herring fallacies ?

I am not on your property.

kaylaluv
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

No, it's just you that is not being served. Everyone else is, but not you. No one will sell you anything. You can't even buy products wholesale to sell to yourself.

Every business on planet Earth? In the US only? The US and Bolivia? In one town or city? Throughout Pickaway county in Ohio? Counties that only start with 'MA'?

If absolutely no one on Planet Earth is selling to me, the only logical conclusion I can deduce is that I am deceased. In which case, oh well.

Also, on what reasonable basis would all businesses target one individual? Your assertion is frivolous. You do realize that in real life something on that scale would never happen?

Whatcha gonna do then?

Move to the rain forest and learn to live like the indigenous tribes? Or continue being deceased if my assertion above were true.

If everyone has the right to not sell anything to you - you can't do a thing about it.

Agreed. Well, sort of. I can't do anything to the businesses to coerce them into selling to me, but outside of that I could do lots of things.

Learn to live like the natives. Hire people to buy stuff for me. Start a mega corporation and use shady tactics to acquire all of the businesses that wouldn't sell to me and become God Emperor of Earth?

Dig holes in the ground with a stick?

Who knows, I could do so much.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

My profession, as Ketsuko pointed out, does not hang on the whims of society. That is tyranny. I, and I alone, am master of my labor. As a programmer, if I choose not to right code for anyone of my choosing, for any reason of my choosing--that is my right to do so. I do not have to perform for you simply because you demand it.

If I choose not to right code for Asians, then I won't. If society trumps my decision and forces me to, how is that any different than involuntary servitude? Using the government to force me to is despotic.

Ketsuko was not saying anything about demanding that a person in one profession should be forced to offer services outside of that profession. He was saying that people should not be forced to serve anyone they choose not to, because that is involuntary servitude.

Though even with the information you provided you didn't actually say you advertise your services to the world which may put you in the category as an employee. Which you have the right to refuse work as an employee or quite jobs. However if you offer your services to the public like geek squad or something that is a different story. It really depends on what category you fall in.

I provided the information for rational people to better understand the laws of society. If you truly believe you are in the right then I challenge you to provide written declaration to those who you refuse service based on race, creed, religion, etc. .... If you honestly believe that you are in the right then you should have no problem doing so. If someone does take you to court for it then you will have the chance to prove to the world the US just how right you are.

After reading your replies on a variety of topics I know there is nothing I can say to sway you. So all there is to really do is test your model. If you feel hesitant in doing so I think you should really think about why that is.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


They just don't like you. They don't like the way you look, they don't like the way you talk. They don't like the way you eat. And it's everywhere you go. You're not deceased. You are very much alive - just not likeable.

So yes, I guess you could go live in isolation on a desert island somewhere and fend for yourself. Is that really how you want to live the rest of your life? Knowing that everyone else gets to live a normal life, being treated with respect - but not you? You're stuck on this island all by yourself?

But you're right - that's never going to happen, and do you know why? Because we have laws that make it so no one can refuse to sell you stuff, just because they don't like you. Lucky you.