XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 11/8/2018 4:12 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   When to people each have a right that conflicts with the other, it is   
   proper for the government to weigh in on which right takes precedence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)