XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 11/16/2018 4:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   If both agree to the terms of the transaction, then the equal transfer   
   of one form of value in exchange for something else of value.   
      
   If either party disagrees for whatever reason, there is no transaction.   
   The customer can refuse to buy for whatever reason.  The baker can   
   refuse to sell for whatever reason.  They are each equal.  The customer   
   can't be forced to buy.  The baker can't be forced to sell.   
      
   But enough of me making sense.  Let's look at your model of nonsense for   
   a change.   
      
   You assert that the baker can be forced against his will to sell a cake.   
      
   So, if you believe in equality, then a customer can be forced against   
   his will to buy a cake.   
      
   If you don't believe in equality, then the customer can't be forced.   
      
   Which is it, Rosie?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)