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 11:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   No it doesn't, government (and in your model that means democratic   
   government, i.e. the will of the majority) doesn't have any special   
   powers that allow it to determine which takes precedence.  An in no case   
   can someone be compelled to act, again, because that requires   
   inequality.  How can you not see that?   
      
   Further, rights are BOUNDED by the free exercise of rights of another,   
   they do not overlap.  That bound may be flexible, but it does not   
   overlap -- Only in totalitarianism can one be compelled because of the   
   'rights' of another.   
      
   Do you not believe in equality of men?  You sure come across that you   
   do, yet fundamentally your entire argument seems based on inequality.   
      
   Communism compels people to produce.   
      
   Socialism compels people to benevolence.   
      
   Totalitarianism compels people in all things.   
      
   Are you a communist?   
      
   Are you a socialist?   
      
   Or worse?   
      
   Why is it that you feel that compulsion is an acceptable model of   
   governance?  More importantly, why can't you freely admit it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)