First Amendment Question

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Well government had to get involved not just here but in other countries as well in fact as I was looking through the data base of discrimination laws most states enforce or have a version of the same laws as the federal branch.


The governments had to get involved because people wouldn't except or adhere to basic principles of the nation. Laws do not usually come about without reason. Key word there is usually. They are constantly challenged in court until the are found to be within the guidelines of our constitution or not. To be upheld by the Constitution usually in our highest court is a process which I respect.

There will always be laws some groups or individuals disagree with, but those laws are built on the basis of our society.

LewsTherinThelamon
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.

So, you're saying we should allow discrimination? Go back to segregated schools, separate restaurants and water fountains for the blacks, make them sit at the back of the bus? Government had to get involved to stop all that, you know. Are you saying we should go back to that?

reply to post by kaylaluv

So, you're saying we should allow discrimination?

Yes.

Go back to segregated schools.

Yes and no. Public schools belong to the state and would remain integrated. Private schools would depend entirely upon the owner.

Separate restaurants and water fountains for the blacks

If that is what the private owners wanted to do.

make them sit at the back of the bus?

Buses are paid for by the city and would remain integrated, or anti-discriminatory.

Government had to get involved to stop all that, you know. Are you saying we should go back to that?

Only for private business and individuals acting of their own accord. Like a doctor who performs abortions, but does not want to perform abortions on Jewish women. He should not be forced to perform abortions on Jewish women.

The person getting the abortion, if they were Jewish, has not had their rights violated. The doctor, on the other hand, has. Have you not been paying attention to the arguments that I have been putting forth? I own my labor, you do not. Only I have the right to say who I will service. The government and the mob do not hold that right. The use of force is more immoral than some idiot, bigot and his views on people.

We are all equal to find the service we need elsewhere.

alldaylong

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)

I didn't dispute the fact that the US was a British colony. Are you saying that we didn't revolt because of the behavior of monarchs? So all monarchs were just and anti-tyrannical?

If Monarchs of the world had been nicer, the US may never have formed. If the founding fathers had not had complaints against King George that went unanswered, we would probably still be a British colony.

reply to post by Grimpachi

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.

Why is forced labor OK, though? I can't see answering one immoral action with another being our only option.

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.

Equality?

If a doctor that performs abortions does not want to perform abortions on Jewish women because he thinks Jewish women are "dirty," that is his prerogative because it is his labor. When you force him to labor, you are trampling his rights to what he owns. When the doctor turns away Jewish women, their rights have not been infringed.

When we play the role of customer, all of us have the right to find someone else to service us. If one person will not, we have the right to find someone else to do it. THAT is how we are equal. We all have the freedom to choose.

But not the doctor. The law as it stands creates inequality.

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.

Slavery is the ownership of your labor being given to someone other than yourself. It is not just being forced to "work for free." It is involuntary servitude. I can involuntarily be forced to serve even if I am being compensated. The slaves themselves were, in many instances, compensated--but their servitude was still involuntary.

It does not matter if it is a single individual--the plantation owner--or the "moral majority"--taking away a person's right to decide in what context their labor will be applied, it is fundamentally involuntary servitude. Either YOU own your labor and the rights that ownership gives you, or someone else owns your labor and you are a slave.

So I would posit that the doctor being forced to perform abortions on Jewish women is a slave, hence the inequality created in the law. Only I own my labor, if I do not own it, then I am a slave. It is very simple.

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.

No. They are not founded on anything close to resembling what our republic was based upon.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

Why is forced labor OK, though?

What is your definition of forced labor?

If a doctor that performs abortions does not want to perform abortions on Jewish women because he thinks Jewish women are "dirty,"

What is his reasoning for the claim they are dirty?

reply to post by Grimpachi

What is your definition of forced labor?

Good question.

Forced labor would be the threat of a fine, imprisonment, or physical harm used to cause someone to perform an action, primarily involving physical labor--or, the work otherwise associated with one's profession--an action they would not engage in given the choice.

If I cannot choose in what capacity I offer my labor, then I am a slave.

What is his reasoning for the claim they are dirty?

He has no reasoning, he is an imbecile. Any attempt at reasoning as to why Jewish women are dirty would only result in an embarrassing string of logical fallacies on his part.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It is hard to come up with a complete definition of forced labor because their are parts to what labor consists of.

Compensation is only one aspect. I could be compensated for a job that I wouldn't do if someone was not threatening me with fine, imprisonment, or physical harm. Action is the other part.

I could perform an action for free voluntarily. I could perform an action for free involuntarily.

Even with compensation I could still be acting involuntarily. So my service is being forced out of me by government mandate, which would imply a lack of ownership over "my labor." Ownership is important. Having the right to choose whom we serve is important. If I do not get to choose in what context I render my services, I am no better off than a slave on a plantation.

If I am being forced to action while under duress, the transaction is inherently immoral.

Does this make sense at all? Or am I just a raving lunatic?

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Ok I think this part needs to be focused on from the definition you used.

an action they would not engage in given the choice.

The action being ones chosen profession. If they choose that profession and are compensated fairly while performing that profession (within the guidelines they have set to perform that profession i.e. hours, place of work, etc.) it would be very hard to make a case it was forced.

He has no reasoning, he is an imbecile. Any attempt at reasoning as to why Jewish women are dirty would only result in an embarrassing string of logical fallacies on his part.

OK well then we don't need an imbecile setting standards for society. Let him rant it will not go anywhere. He cant even properly explain his reasoning.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Well, all I can say is that I thank God you are in the minority in this country. Most people hate discrimination enough to want it stopped. I would be so ashamed of our country if we let discrimination take hold again, when we have worked so hard to remove it. Not that it's totally gone, but we have made great strides - no thanks to people like you.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Some of us think freedom is more important.

The action being ones chosen profession. If they choose that profession and are compensated fairly while performing that profession (within the guidelines they have set to perform that profession i.e. hours, place of work, etc.) it would be very hard to make a case it was forced.

reply to post by Grimpachi



A case doesn't have to be made. Because the action of the person that is performing the work is not in question, it is the legality of the MANDATE to do the work against one's will that is in question. It doesn't matter if one chooses a profession and is compensated fairly, when you take away their ability to choose if and when they wish to perform their labor it is considered slavery.

Well, all I can say is that I thank God you are in the minority in this country. Most people hate discrimination enough to want it stopped. I would be so ashamed of our country if we let discrimination take hold again, when we have worked so hard to remove it. Not that it's totally gone, but we have made great strides - no thanks to people like you.

reply to post by kaylaluv


And what if I told you that you were a bigot for saying something like this??

Freedom is tolerance - Ron Paul

Protection under the first amendment is necessary for a free press - just ask those dead(suicided) reporters - the msm belongs to the oligarchy criminals that control the unfederal b.s. bank of the U.S. and 99% of the all countries.

The right to redress - sure just look how the U.S. government kaint wait to hear more about the truther 911 movement.

Freedom of religion - so long as your views do not overlap my views.

Freedom of speech - 'sticks and stones may break my bones - but words will never hurt me.'
Just ask the great Gandhi.

Peacably assemblage is always a challenge - but I will defend that right - till death do us part.