Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    co.politics    |    Nice state sadly overrun by libtards    |    50,863 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 49,783 of 50,863    |
|    Peter Franks to Josh Rosenbluth    |
|    Re: 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Bak    |
|    08 Nov 18 16:12:43    |
   
   XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 11/8/2018 3:42 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 11/8/2018 3:39 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 10/31/2018 4:52 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 10/31/2018 3:32 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/31/2018 11:31 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/31/2018 11:13 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> {snip}   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> You assert that being required to serve is a right of those being   
   >>>>>> served, which NECESSARILY REQUIRES that those that are served have   
   >>>>>> authority over those that serve.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I do not believe it requires those that are served have authority   
   >>>>> over those that serve. Again, this is case of competing rights.   
   >>>>> The customer has the right to pursue happiness, and the baker has   
   >>>>> the liberty right to serve who he wants to. Neither party has   
   >>>>> authority over the other. And yet, the government can choose to   
   >>>>> secure either right it believes takes precedence.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Does forcing/requiring/mandating someone to do something against   
   >>>> their will require authority over that person?   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes.   
   >>   
   >> Where does that authority come from?   
   >   
   > In this case, the government's authority to require the baker to serve   
   > the client comes from securing the right of the client to pursue happiness.   
      
   In essence what you said is that people pursuing happiness have more   
   authority than those that aren't. That doesn't make sense.   
      
   Further, suppose the baker derives happiness from not serving certain   
   clients. Both are pursuing happiness, yet one is compelled to provide   
   for the other. That also doesn't make sense.   
      
   Look at it objectively, your model does not make sense. It *requires*   
   inequality.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca