First Amendment Question

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



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.


The laws have nothing to do with what you said.

The probability of every business on the face of planet Earth joining together to not do business with one individual alone is zero.

That whimsical notion would never happen with or without the law.




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


you are ignoring my fundamental question:

you said:

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


I responded:

WHY?



Why is that OK?

And before you say "It's the LAW!" I understand this fact. I want to know, philosophically, why it is reasonable to force a doctor to perform an abortion when he advertises publicly that he performs an abortion, but he decides not to perform an abortion for a Jew? Why is forcing him to do it reasonable?
edit on 7-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Um, okay, whatever... Im not sure what you are trying to say. Where is the no win situation in my statement?

"Without "The Crown" there would have been no colonies."

Okay...

"Without the colonies there would have been no US."

This is where I disagree. Without the Revolution, there would be no US. The United States is not a direct result of The Crown or the colonies. The United States is a direct result of the action the founders took.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

bmullini
reply to post by alldaylong
 




Without the Revolution, there would be no US.



Who revolted? Answer The Colonists.

Where did the colonists come from? Answer The Colonies

Where did the colonies come from? Answer The Crown.

No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

Can i make it any simpler for you?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
kaylaluv
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.


That doesn't answer my other question.

What businesses are not selling to me? All businesses on Earth? All businesses in the US? In the US and Norway? If businesses in the US are not selling to me, why would Icelandic businesses not serve me? Are you capable of thinking? Is this only in one city? A town? Multiple counties? What is the context?


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?


It wouldn't be so bad. I would have the opportunity to learn many new skills.


Knowing that everyone else gets to live a normal life


"normal."


being treated with respect--but not you?


So we have to use government to force people to treat others with "respect?"


You're stuck on this island all by yourself?


How the hell did you infer that I would be on an island AND alone? Do you often spend time just making things up in your head?


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.


You do realize the impossibility of what you are suggesting, right? Every business on the face of the planet (if that is what you are insinuating) refusing to do business with one individual is a huge leap in logic.

I feel safe saying that that would never happen. Ever.
edit on 7-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 




This is what I said in context.

If said doctor performed abortions he would have no right to refuse to perform them however you cannot force any old doctor that has not performed one or does not offer them to do one as that would be a new service.

You cannot force someone to offer services they do not already offer.


In context that is the service the doctor offers he doesn't get to pick and choose to whom he offers that service based on race, creed, religion, etc, BLAH.

Now if that doctor decided to stop offering that service all together to anyone that doctor can do so and later on if that doctor decided to start offering that service again that doctor can but he/she can't claim that on a case by case basis because that would be a front for discrimination. It wouldn't be long until that doctor wound up in court and possibly lose his/her license.

You can substitute the word abortion for heart surgery or brain surgery. The reason abortion is a good example is most doctors who do it specialize in it. That is their field. So if a doctor stops offering that service then they would probably be going into another field or retiring.


I hope that clears thing up for you.
edit on 7-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 



No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.


Why stop there?

No Roman invasion of Great Britain, No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

No forming of the Roman city-state, No Roman invasion of Great Britain, No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

The fact that a monarch existed had nothing to do with the founding of the US as an autonomous union, anymore than the existence of the Roman empire. That is pretty poor logic.

It was the behavior of the King, and Kings of the past that caused the revolution. If the tyrannical behavior had never existed, then maybe the US would never have become an autonomous union.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


You are STILL ignoring my fundamental question.

you said:

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


I responded:

WHY?


Why is that OK?

And before you say "It's the LAW!" I understand this fact. I want to know, philosophically, why it is reasonable to force a doctor to perform an abortion when he advertises publicly that he performs abortions, but he decides not to perform an abortion for a Jew? Why is forcing him to do it reasonable?

WHY are you dancing around my question?
edit on 7-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by alldaylong
 



No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.


Why stop there?

No Roman invasion of Great Britain, No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

No forming of the Roman city-state, No Roman invasion of Great Britain, No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

The fact that a monarch existed had nothing to do with the founding of the US as an autonomous union, anymore than the existence of the Roman empire. That is pretty poor logic.

It was the behavior of the King, and Kings of the past that caused the revolution. If the tyrannical behavior had never existed, then maybe the US would never have become an autonomous union.



What has the Roman Invasion of England have to do with The Crown? Please Explain.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 



What has the Roman Invasion of England have to do with The Crown? Please Explain.


If the Roman invasion of England had nothing to do with Great Britain having a Monarchy, then please tell me why Great Britain had a Monarchy so I can switch those parts around and fix my post.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Here, I'll do it this way:

Why stop there?

X = "event that caused Great Britain to become a monarchy"
Y = "Preceding event that caused X to transpire"

No X, No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

No Y, No X, No Crown, No Colonies ,No Colonists ,No revolt equals No USA.

The fact that a monarch existed had nothing to do with the founding of the US as an autonomous union, anymore than the existence of X. That is pretty poor logic.

It was the behavior of the King, and Kings of the past that caused the revolution. If the tyrannical behavior had never existed, then maybe the US would never have become an autonomous union.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by alldaylong
 



What has the Roman Invasion of England have to do with The Crown? Please Explain.


If the Roman invasion of England had nothing to do with Great Britain having a Monarchy, then please tell me why Great Britain had a Monarchy so I can switch those parts around and fix my post.


History lesson for you.

The Romans left Britain in 383

First King Of England ( Alfred The Great ) 849

A 400 + year gap there old boy







posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Thank you for correcting me, but I fixed my logic!



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Thank you for correcting me, but I fixed my logic!


Trying to be too clever can sometimes make one look like a complete idiot




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

alldaylong

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Thank you for correcting me, but I fixed my logic!


Trying to be too clever can sometimes make one look like a complete idiot



Probably so BUT, I do not think it was the fact that monarchs existed that caused the US to be formed, as much as the formation of the US was a reaction stemming from the behavior of monarchs.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 




Society as a hole has decided the discrimination is not to be tolerated therefore for the ones who believe it should be tolerated or embraced have been mandated to. That is part of being in this constitutional republic.

The foundation of such probably stems from the Declaration of Independence where the words "All men are created equal" and "We hold these truths to be self-evident" society has interpreted those words and others to find that forms of discrimination to be against what our country stands for. It has been a process because as I am sure you know slavery wasn't abolished till much later and discrimination laws came along after, but they are all based off of what this nation is founded on.

I know you do not like the answer of because it is law but those laws are based off of what our nation has been founded on.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
it was meant to address the governments involvement, not an individuals..



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
i assume the question has already been answered by now and has went off topic..

-_- if i'm the first to answer the question



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


OK, morally, discrimination is wrong and people agree. I would also agree, but I do not see how that makes it reasonable to force someone to do business with people they'd rather not, even if we disagree with their reasoning.

Or, it is getting government involved that I am opposed to. Not the underlying sentiment that bigots suck.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon

alldaylong

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Thank you for correcting me, but I fixed my logic!


Trying to be too clever can sometimes make one look like a complete idiot



Probably so BUT, I do not think it was the fact that monarchs existed that caused the US to be formed, as much as the formation of the US was a reaction stemming from the behavior of monarchs.


Oh dear.

Here is a list of "Crown " ( as in Monarch) colonies. Some will be familiar to you


en.wikipedia.org...

I take it you do know why The US flag has 13 stripes upon it?
edit on 7-2-2014 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join