It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So by yes, you agreed with (or at least would have if you were alive back then) Jim Crow and slavery since they were the law of the land and the will of the majority?
Slaves were legally property, by the law of the land and the majority, so by your position, it appears that you would have agreed with that.
Jim Crow was about the majority wanting to use the law of the land to keep the minority under control, much like you want to do.
It wasn't about property at all. Black men could own property in Jim Crow south, they just were prevented from participating in the political process.
It was not about property, it was about using the law to control your fellow citizens, much as you wish to do.
You support backward ideas of "fairness" and have a complete misunderstanding what "rights" actually are.
"States rights" is a misnomer because the Constitution does not mention "states rights" at all.
It delegates the duties of the federal government and explicitly states that those duties not given the federal government or forbidden to the states is the purview of the states. That is the law of the land.
Unless you can show me which article where it states that the federal government is to dictate whom you shall or shall not do commerce with, then the Constitutional argument for it is flawed--just as flawed as you stated correctly that the "separate but equal" decision was flawed.
An anti-gay marriage proposal that roiled Kansas politics is dead, the chairman of a state Senate committee assigned to review it said Tuesday.
But the declaration from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff King didn't appear likely to end the debate over providing legal protections for people and organizations refusing for religious reasons to provide goods and services to gay and lesbian couples. King, an Independence Republican, said he'll still have hearings on whether Kansas needs to enact religious liberty protections in case the federal courts strike down the state's gay-marriage ban.
you should be able to refuse service to who ever you want, you built that business, you pay taxes on it
reply to post by WP4YT
Just look at Hitler in Germany. Sorry to invoke godwins law, but that's how Hitler started. He actually passed many laws against discrimination and other things that seem like "good" things to protect people
Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.
They just passed Bill 2453 which allows businesses to ban gay couples. IT PASSED! I guess if you are nostalgic and you want to relive a bit of the Jim Crow era prejudices, you know have a destination resort right there in Kansas.
On Wednesday, Kansas' Republican-dominated House passed Bill 2453, which makes it legal for individuals, groups, and businesses to refuse services for same-sex couples if they believe it goes against their religious beliefs to do so.
Though the bill claims that it "protects the rights of religious people," some people of faith are against it, explaining that legalizing discrimination doesn't protect religious freedom at all.
So there you have it. Straight up discrimination. And it's to "protect rights" of Christians. Am I allowed to ban Christians from a store? NO! I had to look this up on Snopes because I thought it was a parody article. But it's true.
I understand businessmen have a right to refuse service to people. I agree with it.
BUT, it shouldn't be based on prejudice or bigotry. You shouldn't have to turn everyone within a certain group away simply because they're in that group. Weather it be racial, religious, et cetera. It should be based on their behavior and their actions.
What is it about freedom that you don't understand???
In one breath you declare people should have freedom, yet in the next you say it should be the freedom to be TOLD HOW TO BE FREE...
I'm not picking on you, but seriously go back and read your post. Modern day Americans seem incapable of swallowing reality, the reality that you can't have things both ways.
It's the same as people who always overprotect their kids. Let the damn kid fall down, and play and get dirty for god's sake!!
Let the business owners shoot themselves in the foot!!!! Why are we always trying to over regulate every damn thing??? The world has been DAMN GOOD at self regulation for a LONG LONG time.
Find the 'How wolves change rivers' video (it's recently on ATS) for a great example how much humans fck everything up when we meddle.
Using freedom to reduce someones else's freedom is hardly a freedom. Or even a right for that matter. It's pretty ironic.
I don't have any hatred toward anyone. Why don't you use the search function to aid your memory rather than making baseless accusations?
1. No one's making them stop worshiping Jesus Christ or God.
2. No one's preventing them from participating in the Sacraments.
3. No one's preventing them from praying, praising, proselytizing or prophesying.
4. No one's forcing them to attend the wedding.
5. No one's forcing them to take part in the wedding.
Brother, the only hate I see is that coming from those God fearing Christians.
reply to post by NavyDoc
However, is not the state forcing a citizen to do commerce against his will also making him a second class citizen? Coercive association fits that exactly.
Are you against all discrimination? Are you against affirmative action that discriminates based on race?
If people are ignorant of US Law before opening a business that's on their own head. The law is simple and very practical, you offer goods and services to the public... the public must include everyone. Such strongly held convictions, so as to refuse goods and services to a person based on whatever difference, are best suited to independent contractors.
Affirmative Action doesn't discriminate against anyone. It does not require a certain amount of x employees and y employees, what it does is offer financial incentives for hiring non white males.
Of course they are. The baker is being told he must supply a wedding cake to a gay wedding, the photographer is being told they must attend and take pictures of a gay wedding. That's participation and for some people participation at a level that implies endorsement.
When the rights of two groups collide, it makes sense to seek out a reasonable compromise. There isn't anything reasonable in forcing someone to shut down their business because they don't want to be seen as endorsing gay marriage on religious grounds.
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
Brother, the only hate I see is that coming from those God fearing Christians.
I see it on both sides. The difference is that I see many Christians acknowledging and condemning the hatred they see in their own camp. I don't see anyone in the LGBT community or among their supporters that is even willing to acknowledge the hatred in their camp, much less condemn it. I'd really like to find those voices, it would restore a little balance in my mind towards the LGBT community.
Nope, and every time you make this claim on my behalf it's incorrect. I have claimed that the American system balances individual rights versus collective rights. It is your position that "property is sacrosanct" and therefore you are the one who would have argued for the continuance of slavery, not me.
You have said, over and over, that if it is the will of the majority and the law of the land, then it was right and must be followed. Those were the will of the people and the law of the land. You position should be modified to "if it is the will of the majority and the law of the land and I agree with it" because that's what you've been really doing in this entire discussion. To you, you fall back of "will of the people" and "law of the land" only for those things you agree with and reverse yourself when you do not. To you, rights are variable depending on what you feel about the right being discussed or who is engaging in them.
Wrong again. I want individual rights recognized as they are in the Constitution balanced with the needs of the People.
No you don't. You only want the "needs of the people" when you agree with what the "needs of he people are" and you want to subjugate individual liberties you disagree with using the "needs of the people" as an excuse to do so.
And prevented from being served in establishments as everyone else was, and prevented from riding in regular train cars as everyone else was, AND from sitting in the theater as everyone else was ... sounds like you're trying to minimize the impact of the Jim Crow laws here, particularly since the basic argument was that the owner of the restaurant, the train, and the theater were all merely exercising their PROPERTY RIGHTS and could tell Black Americans where to sit and sleep.
All the above was the law of he land, supported by that overreaching government you love so much, and the will of the people just like you say you support. This points out the hypocrisy of your position--that if the law says it and "the people want it" then it is GTG to restrict the individual liberty of the minority or the individual.
Wrong again. It is exactly about the rights of property owners to serve who they want, when they want, what they want, etc. Why are you so clearly misrepresenting Jim Crow laws, Doc?
I'm not. I'm explaining them for what they were outside of leftist talking points. The true negative Jim Crow laws were GOVERNMENT LAWS that limited the ability of the African American from participating in the political arena, voting, starting and owning businesses (you know, those businesses you want the government to control). A restaurant owner not wanting to serve someone was a small part of a horrible, institutionalize system. But hey, as long as it's the "will of the people" and "the law of the land" screw the minority or the individual, right?
Prove it, don't just spew it. Further, who are you to preach? You think that some folks should have to come in the back door, or have separate water fountains ... if that's what the OWNER OF PROPERTY wants to offer them. Pfft.
Get the board out of your own eye, or better yet, physician, heal thyself.
See, you complain about people putting words in your own mouth but you love to do that to others. Quote any post where I supported that--you can't. I find discrimination abhorrent, but just because I find something abhorrent does not mean that there should be a law forcing people not to do things I dislike. That's something that fascists like to do.
See, there you go. All you need now is a Rebel flag waving and Dixie playing.
See, this is how I know you are a leftist. The last bastion of a leftist in a corner, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, is to play the race/racist card.
I haven't made any claim that the US Constitution says anything like that, although the Commerce Clause is pretty clear. Public accommodation laws usually enact at the State or local level, you know where the purview of the States begins? (As in Colorado, as in Kansas, remember that conversation?)
Yes you have, repeatedly, saying that your position is based on the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. You did it just there, citing the commerce clause. And you change you position yet again right here. You went on earlier about how state laws are subordinate to the Constitution and that states laws were not "the law of the land" and now you are changing that position? Which is it? Do the states have the preview to make anti-discrimination laws or not as they see fit or not?
Here's the thing, Doc. All you're doing here is assigning beliefs to myself and to others that we don't have because that is convenient for your argument. Why muddy the water with all that?
These positions are your statements. It is not my fault if you haven't thought your position through or have a superficial understanding of the subject matter.
Show, state, demonstrate, elucidate, WHERE personal property is declared to be sacrosanct and untouchable by government through due process of law, please. Show where any Constitution or any other legal document states that a public business can do whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to, to whomever it wants to (or not.)
What is a "public business?" Let's look at the 5ht Amendment.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So if you determine that my business is "public" and that I have no say in how it is run, then where is my just compensation for making my business "public?"
I've never said that a business can whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to, to whomever it wants to. Reducto ad absurdum is the argument of a small mind. Certainly a business cannot infringe upon someone else's rights or damage another person's property or commit fraud or theft or fail to fulfill contracts. However, I do not have a "right" to your services. If you do not want to do business with me as long as we have not already entered a contractual agreement, you have not violated my rights at all. If we cannot arrange a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and/or services I am free to go elsewhere. It is wrong me to use the coercive power of government to force you to provide me with your services against your will. In a previous time, such an arrangement was known as "slavery."
The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).
* They empowered Congress to protect intellectual property by authorizing copyright and patent laws (I-8-8).
* They granted Congress authority to punish piracy, a crime directed principally against property (I-8-10).
* They denied Congress and the states authority to pass ex post facto laws (I-9-3 and I-10), a ban that some of the Founders thought would protect property.
* When it became clear that the ban on ex post facto laws was not broad enough to protect property, they partially plugged the gap with the Fifth Amendment, which (1) prevented any person from being deprived of . . . property, without due process of law and (2) required compensation when property [was] taken for public use.
* They added a section (Article I, Section 10) with several provisions protecting financial assets against state governments.
* Similarly, they inserted a section providing that those who had loaned money to the former Confederation Congress would be able to enforce those debts against the new government (V-1).
* They granted the federal courts jurisdiction over interstate land claims and interstate debts to limit the extent to which state courts could discriminate against the property rights of out-of-staters (III-2-1 and III-2-2).
* They added the Full Faith and Credit Clause (IV-1) partly to require state courts to honor property records in other states.
* The Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause (IV-2-1) protected the rights of citizens doing business and owning land in other states (including, by the way, the rights of women and free African-American citizens).
* The Founders gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers). This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private sector.
* The Founders inserted a provision specifically protecting the property of family members of those convicted of treason (III-3-2).
* They adopted the Third Amendment, which largely prevented the government from quartering troops in private homes.
* They adopted the Fourth Amendment, which protected persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.
* They added the Eighth Amendment, which barred excessive fines.
* They also inserted a number of other checks and balances, designed partly to protect minorities from unfair property confiscations.
So yeah, the Constitution is FULL of private property protections but has ZERO mention of dictating who a business owner may or may not serve.
This is an excellent read:object.cato.org... rg/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf
Many people were fearful that the Constitution still concentrated too much power in the hands of the federal government. The electorate in key states insisted upon a “Bill of Rights” lest they would reject the proposed Constitution.
These amendments soon became incorporated into the new Constitution. Six of these ten amendments pertain either directly or indirectly to private property rights.
The Third Amendment states, “No soldier shall in times of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.” This amendment grew out of abuses by the British, who had forced people to allow troops into their homes. The amendment clearly protects the rights of homeowners, but is too specific for wider applications.
The Fourth Amendment includes the clause, “The rights of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . .” The “search and seizure” clause has been interpreted to pertain primarily to criminal cases, but the stated intent of this statement is to make people secure in their persons and possessions. In civil cases law enforcement officials presently are able to seize property without a warrant and place the burden of proof upon the owner to show that he did not commit a crime. In fact, some local governments now use civil seizures to supplement their budgets.
The Seventh Amendment requires that for civil cases in federal courts, “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to common law.” The common law, as we have seen, rests upon three pillars, including private property rights. This indirect recognition of private property only protects individual owners against other private parties. These common law property claims become enforceable against the federal government under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Amendment Nine states, “The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment Ten further stipulates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states and the people.” The original intent of the “enumeration” and the “reservation” clauses clearly reaffirm the contract theory of government held by John Locke and James Madison alike. All “powers not delegated to the federal government” includes any and all private property rights described under the common law. Historically, however, U.S. courts have never used the “reservation” clause to decide important cases.
The most explicit recognition of private property comes in the Fifth Amendment which states “Nor shall [anyone] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” The first clause is called the “due process” clause while the second part is referred to as the “takings” clause.
Until the middle of the twentieth century, the “due process” clause was often used to strike down regulations imposed on private property especially if they amounted to confiscation by regulation or if they exceeded the federal government’s constitutionally delegated authority. For example, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act required all trades and businesses to form trade associations, restrict entry, and establish minimum wages and prices, the Supreme Court overturned this wholesale reorganization of U.S. industry as a violation of the “due process” clause. This prompted President Roosevelt to threaten to “pack” the Supreme Court. Although Roosevelt failed to gain congressional approval to expand the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members, the Court no longer overturned New Deal policies. Subsequently, Courts have created an artificial distinction between “property liberties” and “personal liberties.” Rarely, do Courts use the “due process” clause to uphold “property liberties” anymore. Current judicial theorists argue that the Constitution does not prescribe a particular economic system (capitalism). Therefore, private property liberties are not protected while “personal liberties” such as First Amendment guarantees of free speech are still upheld under the “due process” clause.
The “takings” clause requires all levels of government to justly compensate owners for property taken for public use. Whenever land is condemned or taken for highway construction, military bases, and so forth, courts must estimate the fair value of the property to be paid to the owners. The “takings” clause also requires governments to compensate owners when confiscatory taxes are imposed or regulatory acts render property worthless.
The “takings” clause was intended to prevent the government from forcing a few property owners to bear the burdens of legislative measures intended to benefit the general public. It reduces the uncertainties of property ownership arising out of the political system, helping to mitigate the problems of “mutable” policy alluded to by Madison. Requiring government to compensate owners for the resources that it takes for public use also enhances proper cost-benefit planning on the part of policymakers; but the primary purpose of this clause is to protect property owners from arbitrary governmental power, not to assist bureaucratic planners–or else the framers would have added a “givings” clause entitling the State to be compensated for the public benefits it claims to generate.
Until the twentieth century, U.S. courts never applied the “takings” clause to regulations falling short of transferring legal title to the government. Courts, however, did respect private property. Owners could find relief under the “due process” clause which could overturn state and federal legislation altogether. Indeed, the failure to apply the “due process” clause in property cases places the “takings” clause as the final barrier to full governmental supremacy over private property rights.
At present, courts are evolving their opinions regarding the “takings” clause. They are willing to allow the regulation of property to some extent, but if the regulation goes too far it may become a taking. The current legal uncertainty results from the clashing views on the nature of private property. Does property constitute the rights of individual owners to actions which enjoy constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions or is the government supreme? In our forefathers’ day, the latter view was known as “the divine right of kings.” During the middle of the twentieth century, the economic system which allows ownership on paper while the government made all of the important decisions regarding the uses of property was called fascism. Today, in the United States government supremacy over individual property owners means that the government may temporarily permit us to hold title to certain of its possessions and use them in limited ways at its pleasure. So far, the opponents of constitutional property rights have refused to give their system a new name, but it amounts to the same old system called tyranny.
The essence of private property is the bundle of actions which owners may rightfully perform. Logically, any legislation restricting these ownership acts amounts to a regulatory “taking” and the owner ought to be entitled to be compensated for the decline in value of his assets. The Constitution did not establish unlimited majority rule. Even the legislature must be subject to the rule of law.
Nevertheless, many regulations would not involve compensation under the Fifth Amendment because they either do not involve a regulatory “taking” or measurably reduce the fair market value of property. For example, if landowners have a right to be free of pollution under the common law of nuisance and the owners are too disorganized to protect their rights against polluters, a governmental statute may empower the executive to bring the polluters to court under the common law and even impose special statutory penalties upon them. Since the right to pollute did not exist, no “taking” is involved and the government is merely performing its legitimate role in defense of private property. Other regulations, such as Civil Rights public accommodations cases, the regulatory requirement to serve all patrons would not adversely affect the value of the property. Zoning laws often increase land values. No compensation would be required unless the value of the “takings” is measurably reduced.
Read more: www.fee.org...
Prove YOUR claim for a change.
I just did above, and quite well, might I add.
Leave all the personal attacks out of it.
Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black.
What does an independent contractor do but offer a good and or service? They would be and are in the same boat.
So you are for racial discrimination, or discrimination based on race.
For an "anarchist" you sure seem to like government involvement and regulation.
I want to play devil's advocate for a moment: from whence do the "rights of property" arise? IN other words, how do we get property rights? I own a house. What gives me ownership? (I'm fully aware of what deeds, titles, covenants, and estates define; no need to explain that to me.) What is the SOURCE of your property rights?
from www.conservapedia.com... Private property means assets that can be acquired, transferred and controlled by individuals rather than government, such as land, houses, chattels, and goods. It is characterized by a single owner with absolute dominion over the property. When two or more owners have a claim or if the ownership is temporary or limited, it is not private property. Private property, in the United States of America, is constitutionally protected by state and federal constitution (see: Fifth Amendment)
Fifth Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A juridical or artificial person (Latin: persona ficta; also juristic person) has a legal name and has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities in law, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of a juridical person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as it is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).
There are numerous instances where the US Supreme Court has found that state courts have reasonably concluded that "the health, safety, morals, or general welfare" would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land. And in this context the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld land-use regulations that adversely affected recognized real property interests.
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217 PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
Property ownership refers to a set of legal rights, held by a person (or persons), relating to a particular thing, which together are recognized as possession of that thing. Ownership consists of possession and control over the item. Although the exact scope of that set of rights can vary depending upon the nature of the thing owned, and from legal system to legal system, certain of those rights represent the core of what is generally understood as “ownership.” Chief amongst these is the right to exclude others from the use or enjoyment of the thing owned.
1. With all due respect, I don't care what you "accept" or not. Levelling an oblique accusation of "religious hatred" at someone when you have no reason to is just ill-mannered. What thread are you referring to? Why not send a private message before saying something like that?
2. The guys didn't claim that the cake-maker was keeping them from being gay or having sex; that's an absurd example. The cake-maker has a public business, he refused service to them based on arbitrary and discriminatory reasons. That was their claim. The baker claimed religious freedom; his religious freedom was not being limited in any way; he was asked to perform the service he offers to the public and has offered even to dogs. Not only that, it is a pattern of behavior on his part
Religious freedom specifically means that the government will not force a religion on individuals.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So ... no one was forced to go to any wedding.
.... They should perform their business - products, services - as offered to the public, without small-minded prejudice. If business owners want to make such poor business decisions, perhaps they should hire others to run their businesses for them