XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 11/13/2018 1:28 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Inequality is inevitable in this case.  One party will necessarily   
   prevail over the other.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)