XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 8/22/2018 5:02 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 8/22/2018 8:13 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 8/22/2018 7:58 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 8/21/2018 5:20 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>   
   >> {snip}   
   >>   
   >>>>> And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.  Which has   
   >>>>> been my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at   
   >>>>> irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.   
   >>>   
   >>> Under what authority is he prohibited from conducting his business as   
   >>> he sees fit.   
   >>>   
   >>> And I'm going to drive to the root of that authority, so ready   
   >>> thyself now.   
   >>   
   >> We've been down this road before.  As I recall, you believe that when   
   >> an individual has no authority to tell someone what to do, the   
   >> majority doesn't either.   
   >   
   > A point that I've proved many times.   
   >   
   > And a point that you've never been able to counter once, not once.   
   >   
   >> One consequence of your position is that taxation with representation   
   >> is not authorized, and as a result government-provided police and fire   
   >> protection isn't either.  Sounds crazy to me.   
   >   
   > So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds crazy   
   > to you'... ?!   
      
   No.  My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces results   
   which I find absurd.   
      
   > Not much of a foundation to build a form of governance upon.   
   >   
   > Nevertheless, I presume that you will also bow out of this discussion   
   > rather than drive to the root, therefore my proven assertion that one   
   > does not have authority over another stands.   
      
   There is no need for me to discuss it any further given my belief that   
   the results your thesis produces are absurd.  Since we aren't debating   
   factual statements, you can't prove anything (and neither can I).   
      
   > Therefore, as long as he does not willfully violate the rights of   
   > another, the business owner is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.   
   >   
   >>>>>>> Regardless, they are intolerant.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Of course.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> At long last, you agree with my statement.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!  Come on Rosie,   
   >>>>> you are slipping.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, it isn't irrelevant.  What my statement shows is that there is   
   >>>> nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which has NEVER been my point.  My point was, and still is, that   
   >>> THOSE that are YELLING for TOLERANCE the LOUDEST are the MOST   
   >>> INTOLERANT!   
   >>   
   >> I don't think they are any more intolerant than anyone else.   
   >>> If they demand that people are tolerant of their manner of conduct   
   >>> then they must equally be tolerant of other's manner of conduct.   
   >>   
   >> They aren't demanding tolerance of their conduct.  They are demanding   
   >> not to be discriminated against because they are gay.   
   >   
   > They can make the demand that government does not discriminate, but they   
   > can make no such demand against private citizens.   
      
   Per above, we disagree on that.  And that's fine.  But, your accusations   
   that they are demanding tolerance of their conduct remains untrue.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)