Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
@ifmaz
quote:
The Westboro Baptist Church members pay taxes. If the Westboro Baptist Church was to enter my hypothetical store would I not be able to refuse them as they disgust me, and could I not cite my religious convictions of everyone being equal when I did so? Or would I instead be forced to provide them services?
Freedom includes the side-effect of "tolerating" things you don't necessarily agree with. Let the free market decide what it will tolerate; if enough people discover the views of companies and opt to not do business with them, those businesses will eventually fold. Instead, what you are demanding is government coercion.
It is deliciously ironic and amusing that you claim it is your religious conviction that everyone is equal but certain classes of people disgust you. Is disgust an exercise of religion? I think not. Yes, you are required (not forced) to serve them unless they are disrupting your business in some fashion. When you open your door you are bound by the Laws of city, state, and nation. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 is one of those Laws which bind our commerce.
Religious freedom granted by our Constitution, that pesky thing again, does not grant us the right to be intolerant of others. What are you thinking with? Whatever you are thinking is coming out of your arse.
The 'free market' is a neo-liberal invention used to justify smaller government and to enrich CEO's at the expense of impoverishing a large number of our citizenry; it is a canard that justifies the upward distribution of wealth.
Then finally in an effort to justify bigotry you switch 180 degrees from a merchant choosing who he will serve to consumers boycotting a business. The two are diametrically opposed.
To answer your whiney complaints about authoritarianism and government coercion, you fail to recognize that we give the government the power to coerce in order to provide for the mutual defense and to maintain a civil society. Under our Constitution we have the power to change that government or to have our representatives restrain that power. Perhaps you would prefer the Libertarian wet dream of anarchy.
I'm bored so lets disect your foaming at the mouth:
First:
It is deliciously ironic and amusing that you claim it is your religious conviction that everyone is equal but certain classes of people disgust you.
Not at all, being equal does not mean being clones vince.
Is disgust an exercise of religion?
Vince, disgust is an emotional response that occurs when one person is being subject to the results of being forced to exercize da gubblemint religion at the end of the barrel of a gubblemint gun.
Yes, you are required (not forced) to serve them unless they are disrupting your business in some fashion.
Orwell much vince? required but not forced? When the gubblemint throws you in jail and puts you out of business and fine you a 1/4 million dolloars because you stood up for your religious convictions and didnt bake a fucking cake is not force? What planet did that line come from?
I'd be very interested in hearing how you separate required and forced with respect to what actually happens. How is that different? 
When you open your door you are bound by the Laws of city, state, and nation.
really vince? sounds more like gubblemint programming to me 
Here how about a taste of reality:
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: <--Do you know what that is?
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [But there is so much money in it they enforce them anyway!] emphasis mine!
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
-----------
Religious freedom granted by our Constitution, that pesky thing again, does not grant us the right to be intolerant of others. What are you thinking with? Whatever you are thinking is coming out of your arse.
I already explained to you that a RESERVED RIGHT IS NOT A GRANT from, but a RIGHT RESERVED which means it is set APART FROM and NOT UNDER the laws of the united states. The united states has 'NO LEGITIMATE JURISDICTION' to regulate any religion or enact law that promotes any religion over any other religion or establish themselves as a religion.
You really should do a closer study of law before tell other people they are talking out their ass since when the rubber hits the road its you who is talking out your ass.
does not grant us the right to be intolerant of others.
Thats right the constitution does not 'grant' the gubblemint the authority to be intolerant of others, it explicitly expresses da gubbmints agreement to stay out of the religious affairs of its constituents so atheists can have their religion, marry their pet rock, create wars that slaughter millions, and whine about theists having more than one wife, and their refusal to bake gay wedding cakes or a jewish nazi cakes. Yes theists can have their religion and have tolerance for one another instead while atheists try to clone theists to their atheist religion of the 'lack'.
The 'free market' is a neo-liberal invention used to justify smaller government and to enrich CEO's at the expense of impoverishing a large number of our citizenry; it is a canard that justifies the upward distribution of wealth.
Yes the for profit us prison system traded on the NASDAQ are a gross conflict in interest and has created a slave state.
Then finally in an effort to justify bigotry you switch 180 degrees from a merchant choosing who he will serve to consumers boycotting a business. The two are diametrically opposed.
Not sure what your point is here since merchants choose who they will serve all the time.
To answer your whiney complaints about authoritarianism and government coercion, you fail to recognize that we give the government the power to coerce in order to provide for the mutual defense and to maintain a civil society. Under our Constitution we have the power to change that government or to have our representatives restrain that power. Perhaps you would prefer the Libertarian wet dream of anarchy.
The power to coerce does not include violating reserved rights vince.
Yes they have the power to defend our rights not violate them.
Courts maintain a civil society not gubblemint, despite in our crookocracy it is one in the same, RICO.
NO you do not have the power to change that gubblmint you have the power to whine piss and moan, it will never come down as low as you for a vote, dream on.
Thats right we have respresentatives who represent themselves to line their pockets while tossing us the crumbs, identical to any other fuckwit attorney not doing their job, they are representatives too and we all know how they operate.
I'd talk about anarcy but we need a civil society to advance to that point and as long we have the gubblemint mobocracy holding everyone who dissents at gun point or throwing them jail to rot because they disagree you have no fear that anarchy would ever become a reality.
It should be crystal clear that the gubblemint has no authority to expand commercial regulations in a manner in which infringes upon the RESERVED religious rights of anyone as stated in "16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:" aforesaid.
and what that means for those who fail to add 1 + 1 is that just because the gubblemint forces churches to file a 301c does not mean that its commercial umbrella extends to regulating ANYTHING to do with the religious activities of the church as they would lead you to believe in their relentless attack on religious people
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 4/11/2016 7:55:31 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread