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: 22
49
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Navydoc
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?


Nope that's your position. Property rights are absolute in your argument, remember?



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.


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.



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.


Wrong again. I want individual rights recognized as they are in the Constitution balanced with the needs of the People.



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.

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.



It was not about property, it was about using the law to control your fellow citizens, much as you wish to do.


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?



You support backward ideas of "fairness" and have a complete misunderstanding what "rights" actually are.


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.


"States rights" is a misnomer because the Constitution does not mention "states rights" at all.


Oh please! It was and has been common parlance for over 200 years! You're making the claim yourself below under Amendment X.



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.


See, there you go. All you need now is a Rebel flag waving and Dixie playing.



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.


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?)

Yeah.

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?

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.)

Prove YOUR claim for a change. Leave all the personal attacks out of it.
edit on 0Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:08:03 -060014p122014266 by Gryphon66 because: Bracket, one bracket




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
This ABC article may have been posted, I haven't been following the t..

abcnews.go.com...


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.

edit on 19-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by slednecktx
 





you should be able to refuse service to who ever you want, you built that business, you pay taxes on it




Guess what...what extra "rights" do you gain or claim by the statement of "paying taxes on it" You do realize that taxation was first introduced in your land of the "Free" to pay for your war loans? Clever how the bankers and Govt made the people pay for the noose to tighten. Both sides of this argument fail to see the bigger picture.

You have allowed a social security system that was first enacted to assist with the 1930 depression and the taxation system and more laws to give you the illusion of freedom.

Entitlements,
"Business pays tax for it" - means they have a higher moral claim,
Shoved down my thoat? What about the donations the Churchs make to your politicians?
What about when your Congress swears

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God"

Now even after an extensive fruitless search for WMDs, you still invaded Iraq and now you have your Oil Supplies and cheap Drugs from Afganistan; what happened to the God fearing indignation of the "people" as to the innocent suffering and death of the non-combatants (PC languace for innocent humans)

Both sides of the argument in this thread are falling for the same all trap.
Divide and conquer.
Where are the marches to Washington of the Martin Luther King days, or the anti-Vietnam protests.

Why the silence when your Govt bails out Bankers. You do realize its your money they're using?
Why are you still broke when you country has had 100 years of overseas wars that have enriched the Bankers and the Mega War machine?
Why?
And you people squabble over a restaurant refusing service?
and dont give me that slippery slope argument or Reps vs Dems
You are being played
You have given up your liberty to a paternalistic Police State that feeds you through borrowed money, kills others and your own (not in defence but for profit) does your thinking for you and creates more laws as to entrench its way into your kitchen, tv room and your bathrooms.

When you use the argument that the majority shouldnt change for the whims of the minority you fail to see how thats turned to bite you

Remember a minority (handful of terrorists) changed you to be "compliant" - Homeland security and TSA scanners....all in the name of protection and paranoia
You dont have a true democracy or a true Republic any longer, you have a Govt ruling at the behest of special interest groups

Try embracing your fellow humans whether they be LGBT, Christians, Greenies, or " save the sasquatch party"
march on your congressmen/capitol, 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 people. Shut down factories for a week, demand to see where your taxes are going, where did the bailouts for the "too big to fail" banks disappear to?


You might actually get your liberty back.
or do your really fear liberty?


“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.” ― Milton Friedman

Or to put it more simply; the more Laws you have the less liberty you enjoy

Try also to read Aldous Huxleys "Brave New World" or Goerge Orwells "1984"...you might just get it before its too late



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Yeah we know the bill is dead but it seems some people really want it to be alive.

It is quite hilarious watching them try to justify it. Some of the parallels they make are borderline insane or strait up obtuse.

One of my favorites is how they try to say because they can't get a grocery store to build them a house that is also discrimination. Well not exactly that but it is the same line of thought. It is fun just trying to understand how they are rationalizing their need to discriminate.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   


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
reply to post by WP4YT
 


You do realize that Germany was still crippled in Debt paying off WW 1 Loans to the same mob that finance your Congress? The same Banking Mob that financed both sides of your Civil War? (600,000 dead). Or that Bushs grandfather supplied guns for the Nazis to wipe out the S.A.? Or that Hitler burnt the Reighstag (parallel 9/11?)

Now as to the slippery slope:

educate-yourself.org...
"Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences"

its subsidiary IFF:

"Institute For The Future This is not a typical Tavistock institution in that it is funded by the Ford Foundation, yet it draws its long-range forecasting from the mother of all think tanks. Institute for the Future projects what it believes to be changes that will be taking place in time frames of fifty years. So called "DELPHI PANELS" decide what is normal and what is not, and prepare position papers to "steer" government in the right direction to . off such groups as "people creating civil disorder." (This could be patriotic groups demanding abolition of graduated taxes, or demanding that their right to bear arms is not infringed.) This institute recommends action such as liberalizing abortion laws, drug usage and that cars entering an urban area pay tolls, teaching birth control in public schools, requiring registration of firearms, making use of drugs a non-criminal offense, legalizing homosexuality, paying students for scholastic achievements, making zoning controls a preserve of the state, offering bonuses for family planning and last, but most frightening, a Pol Pot Cambodia-style proposal that new communities be established in rural areas, (concentration camp compounds). As can be observed, many of their goals have already been more than fully realized. "



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Cuervo
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.

Story


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.


So what?
Don't eat there. Don't live there. Don't go there.

Maybe you should spend less time being an authoritarian and forcing your views on everyone and more time worrying about the criminals in Washington who are allowing privately owned offshore mega-banks to steal from our country and militarize our police.

There literally could not be anything less important than this going on.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Lingweenie

8675309jenny

Lingweenie
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.



So I asked "what is it you don't understand about freedom?"

Your reply shows me you actually understand NOTHING about freedom.

Where do you draw the line dear friend? Can I not educate my daughters to avoid dangerous ghettos? Would that be racist?? You are trying to legislate OPINION, and force peoples OPINION'S into hiding.

Lets say that I am gay, and in your world I will be eating in some places that dislike gays, but are not allowed to show it... Well personally I would rather someone put a big sign in the window that says "we don't serve fags" so I can say, "yup, won't be eating at that asholes restaurant!" , rather than have his opinion be censored, and instead he wipes his ass with my toast in the kitchen.

Go a., PRETEND that's not what happens.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Gays should go back in the closet and shut their damn mouth. They want to shove their homo agenda into our normal lives.

They have the same rights as everyone else, except they want extra rights.

And that show called GLEE on Star World Network is just a gay platform to further their ungodly life style. GLEE actually means GAY.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





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?


First and most importantly, If you never said that and my memory failed me I apologize. I did try to verify it, but in the thread I thought you had said it one of your posts was removed, so I can't. Given that, if you're saying that you never said anything of that kind, then I accept that as the truth of the matter.



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.


And allowing people to decline to service gay weddings on religious grounds doesn't prevent homosexuals from engaging in homosexual behavior, marrying someone of the same sex, or running a business.




4. No one's forcing them to attend the wedding.


In the case of the wedding photographer they most certainly are.




5. No one's forcing them to take part in the wedding.


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.








edit on 19-2-2014 by TheConspiracyPages because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Kali74
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 .. 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.


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. Affirmative action also includes racial set asides as described in my post on federal contracting practices.

Now that we've determined that you support discrimination based on race, we see that it is not discrimination that most leftists dislike but that they like discrimination as long as they agree with who is being discriminated against.

For an "anarchist" you sure seem to like government involvement and regulation.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

TheConspiracyPages

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.



Here's a reasonable compromise: if you don't want to bake a "gay" wedding cake, then don't bake ANY wedding cakes. There's lots of things a baker can make besides wedding cakes, and still have a business.

You don't want to photograph gay weddings? Then don't photograph ANY weddings. There's lots of things a photographer can take pictures of besides weddings.

You still have the freedom to have a business. But if you insist on your bakery business including wedding cakes or your photography business including weddings, then your business must follow anti-discrimination laws.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
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.



I am a staunch supporter of the LGBT community, and I condemn any hatred from any camp. I will still be relentless in my fight for equal rights, but there's no hate in my heart while doing it.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


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.

If he wants to pick and choose his customers, he should close his public business and open a private club.

3. Are you referring to the Elane Photography LLC case in New Mexico? New Mexico has passed a law, the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1to -13 (1969, as amended through 2007), that specifically prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. Tossing that into the matter under discussion, I will observe that in New Mexico, the law is clear: there is no "right" to deny service based on sexual orientation. Case law has established a clear precedent in the matter: you don't get to claim "religious freedom" and ignore the law to do whenever you want whenever you want to do it.

Further, Elane Photography is a corporation and does not possess "religious freedom." If the principals of the company had a religious problem with serving some customers, they should hire an employee that doesn't.

Religious freedom specifically means that the government will not force a religion on individuals.

The couple in question found another photographer. One of them filed against Elane Photography LLC on the basis of the New Mexico law. That seems pretty open and shut to me; but the case will apparently be decided by SCOTUS, which will establish the precedent nationally.

So ... no one was forced to go to any wedding.

4. You're right, no one should be forced to shut down their business. 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.
edit on 7Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:44:34 -060014p072014266 by Gryphon66 because: Fact.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Gryphon66

Navydoc







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?

Yeah.




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.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





What does an independent contractor do but offer a good and or service? They would be and are in the same boat.


Independent Contractors do not fall under Public Accommodations Laws.



So you are for racial discrimination, or discrimination based on race.


Really? Nothing I said can be construed as such. Only in the mind of a person who wants everyone to be guilty of discrimination so that they can turn around and point a finger and say: "See? So and so did it!"



For an "anarchist" you sure seem to like government involvement and regulation.


I think it's rather sad that because too many people are completely incapable of participating in a true free market, that people have to appeal to authority to stop it. A true free market automatically wouldn't discriminate against anyone for any reason. A true free market in this regard is exactly as the US Law states: Services and Goods offered to the public must be offered to the whole public. People choosing to operate businesses would put on their adult pants and realize that means sometimes having to do business with people you don't agree with. I think it's whiny and rather immature for people to do business any other way.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


But no country I am aware of has a truly free market do they ?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 




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?


Note: apologies for the formatting.



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.
"


en.wikipedia.org...


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).


Its ambiguous I mean how is it "your property" if you need the legal system to validate it?
I think there is something to be said for the Sovereign/Freeman movements in various countries who claim statute law is "illegal" for want of a better word. Its perhaps telling how they're all branded Terrorists?

Another fact I find interesting is that Sovereign Govts need a Corporation Number. I thought they were Sovereign inherently because they were different than a Corporation or Natural Person. So if a Govt (Corporation) goes Bankrupt and is insolvent....who do the Bankers claim off...the shareholders...I mean taxpayers....hmmmm

Under the 5th Amendment alone "Eminent Domain" allows Govt take your peoperty away from you.


en.wikipedia.org...



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.


See its not really your land



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.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

johnb
reply to post by Kali74
 


But no country I am aware of has a truly free market do they ?



Nope they don't. Capitalism doesn't allow for a true free market where everyone that enters is on equal footing or in fact where everyone is allowed access at all.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





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?


I've apologized if my memory was faulty in the matter, but I can't verify it either way since one of your posts in the thread about Putin and the Sochi Olympics has been removed. All I can do is acknowledged that I can't verify that you made the statement and admit that my memory could have been faulty. However, your belief that someone should be deprived of their business because they won't endorse gay marriage on religious grounds demonstrates your hatred, so while I regret having referred to a statement that you may or may not have made and that I can't verify, I don't regret characterizing your or the LGBT community's stance on this issue as hateful.

And with all due respect to you, I don't really care if you accept my characterization of you & the LGBT community as hateful or not. Your acceptance or lack there of neither validates or invalidates it.





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


No they didn't claim that he was keeping them from being gay or having sex, and neither was I. What I was doing was comparing your points about people of faith still being able to exercise that faith even in light of the recent court rulings and the failure of the Kansas bill with the fact that even if a person of faith refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, homosexuals can still get married, have sex with members of the same sex, and operate businesses, the latter of which is being denied to people who won't service a gay event on religious grounds.

As far as "his religious freedom not being limited in any way" you're just factually wrong. Clearly he is being limited.

"he refused service to them based on arbitrary and discriminatory reasons . . . "

Arbitrary? No, there isn't anything arbitrary about them, he's basing his refusal on his religious beliefs.




Religious freedom specifically means that the government will not force a religion on individuals.


You seem to conveniently ignore the part in the First Amendment about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


It seems to me that In order to prevent what a person of faith see's as the free exercise of his religion there needs to be a compelling reason. The inconvenience or the prevention of someone in the homosexual community from feeling offended isn't worthy of prohibiting someone from exercising their religion as they see fit.



So ... no one was forced to go to any wedding.


That's disingenuous. Whether that particular photographer had to attend isn't the point. The point is that the message has been sent that in the future photographers will have to or be punished.





.... 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


That would be one solution. Here is another one. They can accept that the LGBT community isn't looking for equality or equity, they're looking for domination, special treatment and to crush out of existence anyone that disapproves of their lifestyle. They can recognize the LGBT community as the hate filled, hypocritical, grasping little group that they are. Then they can make sure that their elected representatives understand that they won't support candidates that pander to the homosexual lobby.

I'm done with this thread, Its exposed me to a side of homosexuality that I've never experienced before and its a very ugly side.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join