XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 11/16/2018 11:24 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 11/13/2018 3:28 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
      
   {snip}   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Inequality is inevitable in a democratic system of governance, and in   
   > that form of governance, one party always prevails over the other.   
   >   
   > However, in a rights-based government, equality is paramount and never   
   > compromised.   
      
   How is it possible in your rights-based government for the baker and the   
   would-be customer to be treated equally?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)