|
Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/29/2008 8:31:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subbysubsubsub
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
If you took my statement to mean that the right does not also curtain rights, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I took issue with the curtailment of rights as being exclusively assigned to the right, and provided a few examples thereof. Government curtails our rights... politicians curtail our rights... regardless of their party... because they want to be perceived as "doing something" even if that something turns out to be the wrong thing. It is a product of having convinced people to look to the government to cure all the ills of society.
Read carefully. Never did I say the left does not also curtail personal rights. In fact, I'm surprised that you missed my 2nd sentence stating quite clearly that "both the left and right curtail personal rights." The rest of your response contradicts your first statement. Previously, you stated quite matter of factly: "it's the left which curtails your personal right." Now I see you've broadened that to the "government...regardless of their party." Hmm...
Please reread what I wrote... I believe you misunderstood it.
quote:
People who vote for politicians seeking to limit choices concerning our bodies, our personal beliefs, etc implicitly choose to have their rights curtailed concerning these matters.
See, that's not how it works, though. If you allow someone's rights to be curtailed, then everyone's rights are curtailed. Rights are not doled out to each of us individually. They are all of ours, collectively. And if you allow one group to be singled out, you have provided justification for you to be singled out.
quote:
Again, please read carefully. How does making available more information and choices for the public to see and decide on for themselves equate to the government deciding what's good or bad for you?? I'm concerned about your sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Where is the support for this?
Because they do not require this of all restaurants, just those that serve fast food. Just those restaurants that the government has deemed "bad". So the government uses scare tactics... making one choice seem awful by comparison to some ideal, but not doing so for others engaged in the same business for whom no such comparison is made. It's selective. It has the specific intention of affecting a selected group's business in a negative manner. I assure you, you will feel differently if and when your business is similarly selected for reasons unknown to you at this time, but for which the government will have a justifiable pretense. Afterall, you have already given them the justification.
quote:
In terms of school prayer and abortion, I'm going to stick with my point that you missed (again), and state that there should be choices. Parents/children should be able to choose between options. Some schools have a "moment of silence" in which students can CHOOSE to do anything from homework, pray, sleep, etc. That's what I'm advocating for --choices!
Then you would be in favor of setting aside Roe v. Wade. Doing so would not make abortion illegal. It would simply afford the citizens of each state the freedom to choose whether they wanted to allow abortions or not, rather than having judges force it upon them. Even abortion rights advocates understand that Roe v. Wade is bad law, and that the creation of new rights under the premise of the right to privacy has had all sorts of deleterious unintended consequences. The court did not need to do so, it could have easily decided Roe v. Wade under the existing Interstate Commerce clause, without the attendant consequences of creating a new bill of rights.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
Yes, they do. They infringe upon the property rights of American citizens. The folks who own bars and restaurants are no longer free to do what they want in the confines of their own property. It's no different than telling you what you can and can't do inside your own home. And that's coming... because you've already established the precendent for it.
You may think you're "doing good", but the unintended consequences, although not unforseeable, do more harm than good.
It's not as simple as you might think. There are issues concerning employee's rights and whether they have a right to work in a healthy environment where they're not exposed to secondhand smoke.
Employees have every right not to apply for a job in a smoking environment on privately owned property. What you're proposing (and I know, you are far from the only one or the first one to use this tactic) is the same as an employee suing an adult movie company because they are exposed to nudity in the workplace. You don't like it, don't work there. No one is forcing you to.
quote:
Another issue: if you establish a place of business that's open to the general public, there are liability issues concerning their safety and well-being. For instance, if someone injures themselves in your place of business and it's reasonable that an injury could have occurred, you may face liability issues.
Yes, that's why business owners carry liabililty insurance. What's your point?
quote:
Yet another issue: your place of business is NOT equal to your own home as your reply suggests.
Yes, it is. In fact, many bars ARE their places of residence as well. I know because my uncle owned a bar, and lived on the upstairs floor. The Constitution does not distinguish between private property used as your domicile, and private property used for your business. It is all just, simply, private property.
quote:
Your place of business is subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny than your own home. For instance, if your place of business is a place of public accommodation or a place of entertainment, you are subject to laws that don't apply in your own home. Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs apply. Property rights do not apply across the board for all properties.
Actually, property rights do apply across the board for all properties. What you describe are property responsibilities, not rights. And government does have the right to license businesses, and to attach certain responsibilities to those licenses. Loss of use is not one of those responsibilities. Requiring a sprinkler system, for instance, does not limit the owner's use of that property at all.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
You do not have a right to be in a privately owned property. You have no right to be in a restaurant or bar. An owner can refuse you entry for any reason at all, or no reason, and you have no recourse. It is their property to do with as they please, and you have no more right of entry or use at their place of business than you do in their home.
You could not be more wrong. I have every right to be in a restaurant or bar thanks to the good old Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevents owners from refusing "[me] entry for any reason at all" according to you. See U. S. v. DeRosier, 473 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1973).
Funny you should cite this particular case, since it was decided on the same Interstate Commerce clause that Roe v. Wade should have been. In US v. DeRosier, the government had to demonstrate that the bar included a form of entertainment that was derived from interstate commerce in order for the federal court to have jurisdiction. The lower court ruled that the presence of a juke box, shuffle board and pool table were insufficient. But the appellate court (in this case) ruled broadly that such games did constitute interstate commerce, giving the federal government legal standing.
In point of fact, all this ruling did was to remand the case to a lower court so that the government could present a case that the defendants had violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
You're mixing apples and oranges again. A good law professor would never allow you to get away with this.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
As it relates to publicly owned property, I agree. As it relates to privately owned property, you are under no obligation to enter if the environment does not suit you.
As long as it's not a public place of business.
If this concept were allowed to continue, it would result in the closing of any private enterprise engaged in public business that offended even a single person. Which means that it would close every private business, because any of them offend at least someone. Jewish and Islamic patrons could sue restaurants that serve pork. Blue haired spinsters could sue strip clubs. Certain religious sects could sue hospitals and doctors. Irregardless of the fact that they are not in business to serve their needs, but simply because they are offended that their needs are not being served. Sorry, this is nonsensical.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
And non-smokers can choose to go where owners allow smoking, or they can choose to go where owners do not allow smoking. How are they denied choice? The only choice you want to deny is that of the smoker... you want to ensure that there is no place that allows smoking.
Please don't put words into my mouth. "you want to ensure that there is no place that allows smoking." Again, sweeping generalizations. I never uttered such a thing.
If smoking in privately owned property becomes illegal, as it is already illegal in public facilities, then what places are left that will allow smoking? No sweeping generalization, just common sense.
quote:
Okay, it's quite clear to me that you're basing most, if not all of your arguments under the fallacy that owners of private property can do whatever they please on their property. This does not apply to places of public accommodation or places of entertainment.
That is true as it relates to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What cases do you cite for restriction of use? Please cite your sources.
quote:
Since, we're talking about anti-smoking laws, which regulate bars, restaurants, clubs, nightclubs, etc, (all of which apply under places of public accommodation/entertainment) what you say has no merit. We're not talking about a person's place of residence.
It's nice that you think it has no merit. But what court thinks that it has no merit. Please cite your cases.
And assuming there are cases to cite, it would merely be an example of depriving citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights to property ownership via judicial fiat. Worse than legislating from the bench, it's rewriting Constitutional law from the bench. By faceless, nameless, unelected judges. Our Constitution already has a clear process by which it can be amended. Nowhere does it list judicial fiat.
quote:
Again, read carefully. I did not say I validate eminent domain in all cases. I said it depends on what it's used for, whom it will benefit, and to what extent. If the conveyance resulted in a greater good for the neighborhood in terms of generating revenue, increasing property value, etc, then yes, maybe the court was justified.
But that is not the Constitutional standard for eminent domain, which allows for the expropriation of private property for "public use" (ie: bridges, roads, stadiums, etc). Not for the "public good". Not to take from one private citizen to give to another private citizen. And until Kelo v. New London, no such thing could have been thought possible in America. But again, the judiciary decided that amending the Constitution was a long and arduous process (and purposely so). So much easier to simply dispense with it, and allow the court to rewrite it themselves.
quote:
BUT this is a blurred line because it's hard to estimate the future benefit before it actually occurs, and it's always easy to go back and validate or dismiss what you once believed was right.
The only line that is blurred now is whether you actually own property, or are simply a caretaker for it until the government decides it will benefit from someone else owning it.
John
|
|
|
|
