The founding fathers? Which ones, the ones that owned slaves? How about the founding mothers? Oh, that's right, they couldn't vote.

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

What you can expect, and rightfully so, is to not be a four star hotel in Philadelphia very long because of lack of business.


JWK

The ones who put their lives and personal fortunes on the line so people like you would eventually have the constitutional right to mock them.

I don't recall asserting you did. And your point?

In theory we may believe that rights exist on their own, but no court will ever enforce a "right that exists without government." Courts enforce the constitution and written laws, not abstract ideas and unwritten beliefs, no matter how important those beliefs are. I personally believe in natural human rights, as did the founders, and as do you, but our beliefs aren't legally enforceable rights.

Thanks for the "uninformed" snipe though.

I agree completely. Please quote where the Constitution clearly describes a fundamental inalienable right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations.

The simple fact is that the Constitution is a rather vague document, and I put more credit in the opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court than a guy on the internet with strong opinions.

The "flaunting their sexual proclivities" part is irrelevant to the rest of your argument. Bigotry against Christians, sure, that's a counter example. But "flaunting their sexual proclivities" isn't a matter of gays discriminating against or persecuting anyone. It just shows your opinion of gays.

That was snarky of me. I apologize. Though it does seem that you believe a large proportion of lawyers are leeches, and the 'leechiness' seems much more important to you than the content of the laws they uphold.

Once again, I have no problem with people rejecting unwanted business contracts or associations, except when it's done in a harmful discriminatory manner that impinges on other people's rights.

[quotes]I have repeatedly indicated people may exercise inalienable rights, so long as they do not impinge upon another’s inalienable rights.[/quote]
And we disagree on what does impinge. You think that firing someone, or not serving someone, because they're gay or black or a woman is just fine. While we think that impinges on the rights of the gays, blacks, and women. That's the core of our disagreement.

I didn't suggest that you did. But that wasn't the right of minorities that I was referring to. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a much broader right than rejecting unwanted business contracts and associations.

uhhhhh..

http://franchise.business-opportunit...les-for-ch-11/

Any business that narrows itself to a certain demo, always runs into hitting the wall when that cliental disappears.

Thus they open the doors to everyone. Hell, Hooters isn't even the same place it was.

And discriminate is a dirty word.


And you are right the free market system has a way of policing itself in a just and equitable manner.

So, you know, nobody really didn't need to free the slaves because the free market would of freed them...sooner or later.





But hey this is all moot because in ten years gay people will be able to get married and homophobes will be looked at the same way the KKK is.


Jsut hopefully all of this can be done without giving the government more power..not that 9/11 didn't do that already...

__________________
If you can't take the Politics forum...Don't spam the other forums with your political threads.

Only to those who pretend it is a dirty word. Are you suggesting a Black male in his 20’s who intentionally marries a Black female in her 20’s is a dirty act?

Are you seriously suggesting that choosing someone to marry is equivalent to denying services and firing people because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation?

What I have established is, discrimination is not a dirty word. Nor is it a dirty word when Hooters discriminates in hiring female serves.

You are begining to bore me.

We are not talking about theory, we are talking about a specific law which impinges upon an inalienable right recognized not only by our founding fathers, but by our SC and which I documented for you. You are very welcome for my informing you as to the facts.


Have you read the Tenth Amendment lately?


The Constitution may seem vague when the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted are not taken into account. You ought to place more credit in the recorded intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted rather than placing your acceptance in an unsubstantiated opinion of some Justice on the Supreme Court as Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI Case who lied about the intentions of the 14th Amendment.



How nice of you to arbitrarily conclude what is not relevant to my arguments. I wrote

Flaunting one’s sexual proclivities in a business environment is unacceptable in countless situations.

You forgot to mention the specific rights you are referring to. Do any of those “rights” impinge upon a fundamental inalienable right, such as the right to contract, which is a right acknowledged by our founding fathers and our SC under the heading of Liberty?

There you go again, misrepresenting what I think is “just fine“. I specifically wrote in POST 55

Why must you repeatedly misrepresent my feelings?






Really? The freedom to reject unwanted business contracts and associations is included in the “liberty” you mention, and is a vital part in one pursuing their economic interests in a freedom loving society.

As to the core of our disagreement, I think it may safely be summed up as follows:

While I disagree with people rejecting business contracts and associations based purely upon race, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc., and rejected without some other factor being taken into account, I believe people ought to be free to reject unwanted contracts and associations for whatever reason they may choose and without having to justify their reasons to folks in government.

You, on the other hand, do not believe people ought to be left free as described above, and that under your moral code, if a member of a selected and identified group is refused a job or other business association by a property/business owner, and they feel or assert it was because the are within a government created protected class, then the business/property owner may very well be summed and forced to submit to a Star Chamber Court inquest to prove they have not violated a moral code which has created a privileged class who may summon a Star Chamber Court inquest.


JWK