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.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 17
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Amagnon

Gryphon66
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Please.

There is usually no response necessary to this neo-Randian clap-trap, but let's "call a spade a spade" this morning, shall we?

All the real property in this country was granted via sovereign act, either by a monarch or the Federal, State or local governments. Land, real property, does not just pop into existence when someone is issued a deed, title, etc. The Deed recognizes that initial "grant" of land.

Where are deeds recorded again? (i.e. made legal) That's right, at the County courthouses.

How are they made legal? By the "notary" of a County or State official.

An individual has exactly the amount of "rights" on property that the various levels of governments allow. If you don't believe that, just stop paying your mortgage and see what happens.

Why is that? Because in the United States, the governments represent the People. The ultimate "sovereign" power of the People is administered through our Constitutions and laws.

This pseudo-ideological rubbish that any individual anywhere suddenly arises above the will of the People is just an example of modern ignorance that passes unchallenged. The PEOPLE are the sovereigns in this country, and their will is expressed through the laws.



Private property rights are the basic principle of both freedom and capitalism - you are asserting that the government can make any law it wants, it cannot - it is constrained by the constitution which protects private property rights.

You are also incorrect if you think mob rule is ok in the US - the US is a Republic, that is it is founded on LAW. Law is not whatever you want it to be - law is there to protect the property and liberty of the individual - not as a tool of the state to infringe liberties. That it is used as such is not an indication that such actions are legitimate - they are not.

There are limitations on use of property, if that use may cause loss or damage to others or is involved in a criminal process - but the right to deny entry to your private property is a foundational legal concept.

Despite my contempt for all states - especially those who have fallen to fascism (of which the US is one of the most obvious) - there is at least a constitution which declares protections for private property. It is a right to deny entry onto your property to anyone you like, even state officials and police - they can only enter if they have a warrant, or they have evidence to show a crime is in progress.


You are quite correct. Fascism by the mob is still fascism. The idea of a republic is that the law of the land, in our case the Constitution protects the rights of the individual from the mob and (by extension) the government. The mob seems to enjoy using the coercive power of the state to force anyone and everyone to bend to the collective and they think that's great as long as individual choices they hate are punished by the state. Where they are short sighted is that they give the government and the mob the power and precedent to destroy them if the pendulum shifts to where they and what they belief are hated by the majority. So many crappy things have been done in the Soviet Union, and Red China and Nazi Germany with the excuse "it's the will of the people" or "For the people" or "in the name of the people."




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Looks like they came to their senses: Anti-Gay Bill Dead.

Glad there was such an uproar over it in the media. I'm not gay, but I don't believe that it is anyone's right to tell another human being who they can be attracted to or who they can love. Preaching the Bible said this and that and is against gays totally contradicts what Jesus taught us.

It's all about love and to love each other.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


Artemis,

My question was put to the LGBT community to clarify for myself just how much damage they're willing to inflict on someone that doesn't share their beliefs about homosexuality. My question was meant to be a human one, not a legal one.

None the less.....




The state hasn't made anyone bake anything! . . . Some one show me where the gov. Is making Christians bake cakes for gay weddings and you have a case


There have been lawsuits against both a photographer and a baker who refused to provide services for a gay wedding.

abcnews.go.com...

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

So you're mistaken, the state is attempting to force people to "bake a cake" .




Those he offends go online and it tends to go viral . . . .Or do you just think Christians shouldn't be criticized


No, I don't see a problem with them going online or bad mouthing a business for any reason, assuming they're being honest. They can do business with whomever they choose to do business with.

But it seems kind of one sided if you don't allow businesses to also decide who they're going to do business with.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Amagnon

Private property rights are the basic principle of both freedom and capitalism - you are asserting that the government can make any law it wants, it cannot - it is constrained by the constitution which protects private property rights.



Freedom and capitalism are not synonymous terms. In fact, they aren't even directly related to each other except in certain ideological rhetoric; read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations for goodness sake. Then read some John Locke, Second Treatise for example. Then some Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine if you really want to understand some of the foundations of American ideas about property.

I did NOT assert that government can make any law it wants; if so, quote me. I stated clearly and unequivocally that the source of 'property rights' is a sovereign function. Perhaps it would be helpful to review some history outside neo-Randian spiel.



You are also incorrect if you think mob rule is ok in the US - the US is a Republic, that is it is founded on LAW. Law is not whatever you want it to be - law is there to protect the property and liberty of the individual - not as a tool of the state to infringe liberties. That it is used as such is not an indication that such actions are legitimate - they are not.


Mob rule? You mean the will of the People as expressed through our representative government(s)? Thats the only thing I have mentioned here. You're (now) making the same argument I made, that it is not some individual who suddenly decides that they are a rule unto themselves, that they can do what they want because they are above "the guvment" ... the state is made of those that represent us BY YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT. If the People allow corruption and graft and absurdity in their government, then it is on US, and believe me, I am well aware of what we have allowed to happen.

However, making generic wide-ranging statements is great for politicking or trying to pretend that the United States can be some faux-libertarian wonderland with a little bit of sloganeering. This is indeed a nation of Laws, starting with the Constitution to the State Constitutions to local laws and ordinances ... ALL of which reinforce the idea that every citizen is protected equally before the laws. The overly simplistic reduction of every question to shouts of "FREEDOM, LIBERTY, AND CAPITAL" is asinine in the extreme, in my opinion. Let's offer some real solutions for a change, eh?



There are limitations on use of property, if that use may cause loss or damage to others or is involved in a criminal process - but the right to deny entry to your private property is a foundational legal concept.


Exactly, but if a business wishes to be open to the public, then the condition of "private" no longer exists. If they want to make their business "members only" then they can do so, but that seems really dumb in light the possibilities of a free market. The concept of private home is not applicable, with about 100 years of legal precedent, to any business that serves "the public." We are all the public. Anything which changes that (for example health concerns about others being exposed to bare skin) results from a concern for the PUBLIC health.



Despite my contempt for all states - especially those who have fallen to fascism (of which the US is one of the most obvious) - there is at least a constitution which declares protections for private property. It is a right to deny entry onto your property to anyone you like, even state officials and police - they can only enter if they have a warrant, or they have evidence to show a crime is in progress.


Then I would say to the "posting persona" that you're presenting, that's living in fantasy land that has never existed outside a Ayn Rand novel. We could certainly debate the fascistic nature of things (but really, the rabid rhetoric has got to get this straight, the US cannot be fascistic and communist at the same time.)

The US Constitution itself only cites "property" in one case, and that quite interestingly refers to the sovereign property of the United States and the several States. The Amendments 5 and 14 include provisions for the loss of property with due process of law, and the requirement that property taken by government action must be compensated at a fair price. That's it.

What is obvious, counter to these free-wheeling neo-libertarian postulates with no basis in reality or law, that the Constitution does actually clearly demonstrate that the sovereign power regarding property in this country resides in the Federal, State and local governments. If a little trouble is taken to understand what the Constitution actually says, it is obvious that this sovereignty only exists in those entities because the People have willed it to be so.
edit on 9Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:57:30 -060014p092014266 by Gryphon66 because: Cut off early.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

NavyDoc

You are quite correct. Fascism by the mob is still fascism. The idea of a republic is that the law of the land, in our case the Constitution protects the rights of the individual from the mob and (by extension) the government. The mob seems to enjoy using the coercive power of the state to force anyone and everyone to bend to the collective and they think that's great as long as individual choices they hate are punished by the state. Where they are short sighted is that they give the government and the mob the power and precedent to destroy them if the pendulum shifts to where they and what they belief are hated by the majority. So many crappy things have been done in the Soviet Union, and Red China and Nazi Germany with the excuse "it's the will of the people" or "For the people" or "in the name of the people."


Yes, all those horrible, horrible things that have been done in the name of the People, for example:



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


What "mob" are you referring to ... that portion of the People of the United States that you personally don't agree with? Talk about fascistic! We ARE a collective, we are a nation, we are a grand group made of groups ... the constant assignation of the word "collective" only with Communism is insipid and boring at this point.

Who the "they" that you're railing against? Anyone who disagrees with you? Freedom of individual expression is fine as long as it suits you?

The balance in the United States and any democratic Republic has always been between individual and collective rights. The US has had one of the best systems to date developed in the world to mete that balance, and if there is an imbalance at this moment, it derives from the insane illusory rhetoric that postulates that an individual somehow has more rights than the rest of us. Mindlessly chanting the buzzwords common to the right-wing media only points, in my opinion, to a lack of original thought.

Your mileage may vary.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
EEEEEHHAAAAWWw....



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by lovebeck
 

That's good news.



Preaching the Bible said this and that and is against gays totally contradicts what Jesus taught us.

It's all about love and to love each other.

And that's well said.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc

You are quite correct. Fascism by the mob is still fascism. The idea of a republic is that the law of the land, in our case the Constitution protects the rights of the individual from the mob and (by extension) the government. The mob seems to enjoy using the coercive power of the state to force anyone and everyone to bend to the collective and they think that's great as long as individual choices they hate are punished by the state. Where they are short sighted is that they give the government and the mob the power and precedent to destroy them if the pendulum shifts to where they and what they belief are hated by the majority. So many crappy things have been done in the Soviet Union, and Red China and Nazi Germany with the excuse "it's the will of the people" or "For the people" or "in the name of the people."


Yes, all those horrible, horrible things that have been done in the name of the People, for example:



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


What "mob" are you referring to ... that portion of the People of the United States that you personally don't agree with? Talk about fascistic! We ARE a collective, we are a nation, we are a grand group made of groups ... the constant assignation of the word "collective" only with Communism is insipid and boring at this point.

Who the "they" that you're railing against? Anyone who disagrees with you? Freedom of individual expression is fine as long as it suits you?

The balance in the United States and any democratic Republic has always been between individual and collective rights. The US has had one of the best systems to date developed in the world to mete that balance, and if there is an imbalance at this moment, it derives from the insane illusory rhetoric that postulates that an individual somehow has more rights than the rest of us. Mindlessly chanting the buzzwords common to the right-wing media only points, in my opinion, to a lack of original thought.

Your mileage may vary.


No freedom of the individual suits me for everyone. Unlike yourself, I think people should be free to make their own decision, even if I disagree with them. So you believe that the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual. Fine. You thus must agree with homosexuals being imprisoned for being homosexual because, at one time, that was the will of the majority.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

lovebeck
Looks like they came to their senses: Anti-Gay Bill Dead.

Glad there was such an uproar over it in the media. I'm not gay, but I don't believe that it is anyone's right to tell another human being who they can be attracted to or who they can love. Preaching the Bible said this and that and is against gays totally contradicts what Jesus taught us.

It's all about love and to love each other.


Whelp /thread.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

NavyDoc

Gryphon66

NavyDoc

You are quite correct. Fascism by the mob is still fascism. The idea of a republic is that the law of the land, in our case the Constitution protects the rights of the individual from the mob and (by extension) the government. The mob seems to enjoy using the coercive power of the state to force anyone and everyone to bend to the collective and they think that's great as long as individual choices they hate are punished by the state. Where they are short sighted is that they give the government and the mob the power and precedent to destroy them if the pendulum shifts to where they and what they belief are hated by the majority. So many crappy things have been done in the Soviet Union, and Red China and Nazi Germany with the excuse "it's the will of the people" or "For the people" or "in the name of the people."


Yes, all those horrible, horrible things that have been done in the name of the People, for example:



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


What "mob" are you referring to ... that portion of the People of the United States that you personally don't agree with? Talk about fascistic! We ARE a collective, we are a nation, we are a grand group made of groups ... the constant assignation of the word "collective" only with Communism is insipid and boring at this point.

Who the "they" that you're railing against? Anyone who disagrees with you? Freedom of individual expression is fine as long as it suits you?

The balance in the United States and any democratic Republic has always been between individual and collective rights. The US has had one of the best systems to date developed in the world to mete that balance, and if there is an imbalance at this moment, it derives from the insane illusory rhetoric that postulates that an individual somehow has more rights than the rest of us. Mindlessly chanting the buzzwords common to the right-wing media only points, in my opinion, to a lack of original thought.

Your mileage may vary.


No freedom of the individual suits me for everyone. Unlike yourself, I think people should be free to make their own decision, even if I disagree with them. So you believe that the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual. Fine. You thus must agree with homosexuals being imprisoned for being homosexual because, at one time, that was the will of the majority.


You mindless droning on of leftist, collectivist theory is where your lack of original thought comes in.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

NavyDoc

No freedom of the individual suits me for everyone. Unlike yourself, I think people should be free to make their own decision, even if I disagree with them. So you believe that the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual. Fine. You thus must agree with homosexuals being imprisoned for being homosexual because, at one time, that was the will of the majority.


Way to sidestep every point I made!

You have no basis to assign me with believing OR saying that people can't make their own decisions. I haven't said it and I don't believe it.

I also don't believe that "the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual" ... really I want to request that you stop trying to put words in my mouth.

To clarify what I believe, is that the United States of America, under our Constitution, as well as the several States that make up that Union, under their State Constitutions, and all Counties, Parishes, Cities, Towns, Villages, etc. has sovereign power that arises from the People of the United States, etc. Not from any given individual interpretation. Individual rights are protected as outlined in that well-defined line of documentations.

What you present is quite obviously a false dilemma. Of course, individuals are protected under the laws enacted by the People. Every American citizen has the right to equal protection of our laws. The example your post offers is absurd.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   


NavyDoc


No freedom of the individual suits me for everyone. Unlike yourself, I think people should be free to make their own decision, even if I disagree with them. So you believe that the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual. Fine. You thus must agree with homosexuals being imprisoned for being homosexual because, at one time, that was the will of the majority.


You mindless droning on of leftist, collectivist theory is where your lack of original thought comes in.


If what I'm stating is "leftist collectivist theory," then so is the Constitution of the United States of America; it's beginning to look like you have a problem with America and the Constitution, navydoc, is that the case?

If not, drop the rhetoric and make a point.
edit on 11Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:16:15 -060014p112014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yep.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Gryphon66


NavyDoc


No freedom of the individual suits me for everyone. Unlike yourself, I think people should be free to make their own decision, even if I disagree with them. So you believe that the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual. Fine. You thus must agree with homosexuals being imprisoned for being homosexual because, at one time, that was the will of the majority.


You mindless droning on of leftist, collectivist theory is where your lack of original thought comes in.


If what I'm stating is "leftist collectivist theory," then so is the Constitution of the United States of America; it's beginning to look like you have a problem with America and the Constitution, navydoc, is that the case?

If not, drop the rhetoric and make a point.
edit on 11Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:16:15 -060014p112014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yep.


Nonsense. For someone who claims to dislike rhetoric and labels, you sure as heck use them yourself.

I love the Constitution, but you neither support nor understand it. The fundamental idea of our Constitutional republic is to have the law of the land protects the rights of the minority or individual from the majority. You seem to like the idea of using the coercive power of government to force the minority or individual to submit to your will and, as long as the majority meets your notions, you are quite happy to sacrifice the rights of individuals with whom you disagree.

Jim Crow was the will of the majority, The majority disagreed with it for several generations. The majority wanted to curtail the rights of the minority and used the force of government to push their will on the minority. Would you agree with Jim Crow since it was the will of "the people?"



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc

No freedom of the individual suits me for everyone. Unlike yourself, I think people should be free to make their own decision, even if I disagree with them. So you believe that the collective will overwhelms the rights of the individual. Fine. You thus must agree with homosexuals being imprisoned for being homosexual because, at one time, that was the will of the majority.


Way to sidestep every point I made!

You have no basis to assign me with believing OR saying that people can't make their own decisions. I haven't said it and I don't believe it.

.


SO you don't believe a business owner should be permitted by the state to choose whom they wish to or do not do business with?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I have to say that my attitude towards the LGBT community has changed significantly since I joined ABS and it hasn't been in a positive direction

I've noticed that throughout this thread, while more than a few Islamic States have some pretty horrific penalties for homosexual behavior, very little if anything is said about that, while much is made of Christianity's stance on homosexuality, which currently, by any standard, is relatively mild. It's the same in the news media. I'm starting to wonder if homosexuals are truly driven by an attraction to people of the same sex or whether they're just really driven by an overwhelming hatred of Christianity.

Whatever the target for your hate is, the idea that the homosexual community believes that a person who runs a business should be put out of business because they won't bake a cake or take photographs for a gay wedding gives lie to any statements that your agenda is driven by anything other than hate.

Congratulations to the LGBT community. You're the new bigots. You're the new tyrants.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Nonsense. For someone who claims to dislike rhetoric and labels, you sure as heck use them yourself.


Misdirection.



I love the Constitution, but you neither support nor understand it.


You love the Constitution but despise the People it protects? Or as you like to call them, the mob? Strange.
Your opinion of my support and understanding is noted. You're incorrect on both counts. Concentrate on your argument instead of talking about me.



The fundamental idea of our Constitutional republic is to have the law of the land protects the rights of the minority or individual from the majority. You seem to like the idea of using the coercive power of government to force the minority or individual to submit to your will and, as long as the majority meets your notions, you are quite happy to sacrifice the rights of individuals with whom you disagree.


Keep trying to push that agenda, it's not sticking. Indeed, the law of the land protects the rights of all of us, both "majority" and "minority." I haven't stated anything differently anywhere. I haven't asked anyone to submit to my will. You just keep piling up these meaningless comments, and I suppose, this tires most posters out. I have repeatedly said that I believe in the American system that balances the rights of the individual with the rights of the People. You repeatedly insist on trying to define that or limit that in some other way.

I don't favor sacrificing anyone's rights ... I favor following the laws of the land. The laws of the land do not permit the owner of a business that opens its doors to "the public" to pick and choose based on any arbitrary criteria who they want to do business with at any time. If they want to have a private membership club, then fine. If they do business with the public, then they must accommodate the public.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Gryphon66

I don't favor sacrificing anyone's rights ... I favor following the laws of the land. The laws of the land do not permit the owner of a business that opens its doors to "the public" to pick and choose based on any arbitrary criteria who they want to do business with at any time. If they want to have a private membership club, then fine. If they do business with the public, then they must accommodate the public.


So you contradict yourself. You are in favor of laws that sacrifice the rights of individuals, just when you agree with it. You are being disingenuous when you say in essence that you don't believe in forcing individuals to do things unless you want to force them to do things, which you just stated you do. Let's say that this bill passed and became law. Would you agree with it since it became law? Does law make something moral? Can you think for yourself?

I asked you before. Since Jim Crow was the law of the land for several generations, you would have been happy with it? After all, it was what the majority, "the people" wanted.


Certainly, the "mob" does not deserve respect when they use the power of government to force their will upon the minority. A few generations ago, the mob would have wanted to imprison homosexuals simply because they were homosexual. Even though the majority wanted that way and the law of the land was to do it, I think it was wrong and an infringement upon the rights of the individual. By your stated position, you would have agreed with It because it was the law of the land and the will of the majority.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Since Jim Crow was the law of the land for several generations, you would have been happy with it? After all, it was what the majority, "the people" wanted.


Which people? White people - or Black people? What was the point of segregation? What was the reason for ending it?

This isn't just about minority or majority preferences - this is about what's right - and about what our standing laws already say

One group of people wants to treat another group differently than it treats everybody else. It also claims religious privilege in a country where laws are supposedly made for everybody and religion doesn't enter into it

So, one group wants to defend it's religious rights? Is requiring someone to treat all people equally under the law somehow denying someone their religious freedom? Prove it then. Where in the Bible are people commanded to shun gay people?

If you could actually prove it, and you mean to change the laws to allow people to legally do whatever their particular 'interpretation' of their beliefs calls for, you've also just allowed sharia law, among others, the same right

Separation of church and state, equal protection under the law - it couldn't be any clearer. Or cleaner


edit on 2/18/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
This is interesting.

Now that a characteristic is legally acceptable, yet not to a religious group, who gains from this?

Religious folks may think that their religious freedoms are being infringed. Yes, I know they are still free to believe what they want, but they cannot act out their faith, they can't run their businesses according to their faith, they must participate in dealings that go against their faith.
The gay folks may think that their rights are being infringed. They cannot shop where they want to shop.

Why, the gay folks may have to go to shops that cater to gays specifically.

Kind of like how some religious folks have to go to places that cater to their specific needs.

Either way, it'll be interesting to see who loses in this.

The faith-based people.
Or the gay people.

(beezzer flips a coin)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


Thank you. I guess I just don't understand why people become so concerned and agitated over who another human being is attracted to, or who they love. Bet they live relatively short, unhappy lives.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join