Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually, "unless proper legal recourse is followed."

See also: "Eminent domain".

See also: "My response last time Being presented that argument"

Yes I did. Eminent domain has absolutely nothing to do with rights, with regard to property or otherwise. Eminent domain is nothing more or less than the unabashed exercise of power by one party over another vastly weaker party. If you wish to use it as an indication that people have no property rights, then the death penalty demonstrates there is no right to life, and myriad other examples will demonstrate there are no rights at all, only the capacity to coerce others.

[Being]

See also: "My response last time Being presented that argument"

Yes I did. Eminent domain has absolutely nothing to do with rights, with regard to property or otherwise. Eminent domain is nothing more or less than the unabashed exercise of power by one party over another vastly weaker party. If you wish to use it as an indication that people have no property rights, then the death penalty demonstrates there is no right to life, and myriad other examples will demonstrate there are no rights at all, only the capacity to coerce others.

Yeah, I didn't understand your point then and I don't understand it in this context either. Eminent Domain is a written law backed by SCOTUS that retricts property rights by giving the local jurisdiction more rights than any other property owner. You can argue the moral implications all day but to argue it does not restrict property rights is ludicrous. That would be like saying easments on your property have no effect on your property rights when in fact an easement dictates your relinquishing of rights.

[earthJoker]

I would argue that death penalty actually has some implications to the "right to live".

[Khendraja'aro]

I would argue that death penalty actually has some implications to the "right to live".

Just like prison has some implications on the "right to freedom".

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah, I didn't understand your point then and I don't understand it in this context either. Eminent Domain is a written law backed by SCOTUS that retricts property rights by giving the local jurisdiction more rights than any other property owner. You can argue the moral implications all day but to argue it does not restrict property rights is ludicrous.

No right is unrestricted, inviolate. You can make the claims you're putting forth, it just involves a framework without rights at all. Lots of material out there for it, including Hobbes. If the exercise of power vitiates a right, then either we throw the concept of rights out the window or we acknowledge that the capacity Power provides to ignore/trample rights isn't relevant, it doesn't matter.

[Veldan Rath]

Yeah, I didn't understand your point then and I don't understand it in this context either. Eminent Domain is a written law backed by SCOTUS that retricts property rights by giving the local jurisdiction more rights than any other property owner. You can argue the moral implications all day but to argue it does not restrict property rights is ludicrous. That would be like saying easments on your property have no effect on your property rights when in fact an easement dictates your relinquishing of rights.

You have it backwards.

Eminent Domain is how the State can take away not give me the right to have something. Eminent Domain was needed as without it the State could not take something away.

[Being]

It involves a framework of laws. Without laws, if rights exist at all it is only in a cooperative sense.

[Veldan Rath]

<face palm>

[Being]

You have it backwards.

Eminent Domain is how the State can take away not give me the right to have something. Eminent Domain was needed as without it the State could not take something away.

What gave you the right to have something in the first place? It certainly wasn't your birth.

[Veldan Rath]

My mere existence gives me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The US Governments (State and Fed) exist to protect those rights, with the rule of law. They do not give them to me, I already had them.

[Flixy]

And without any government or other organisations, what exactly gives or guarantees you those rights? Let's be honest, you only 'have' those rights because your constitution says you have those rights. And international conventions says you have them. And what 'is' a right if it is not enforced, guaranteed, or protected by anyone except yourself? In total anarchy, you have no rights - anyone can in principle take anything from you (including your life, liberty, or property) if he is, say, stronger or smarter than you. A right is merely a convention created by groups of people.

[Being]

My mere existence gives me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Maybe you should look really hard at how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been defined and restricted by law. You can be legally and purposefully killed by another person (so much for your right to life) yet you are not at liberty to purposefully kill another person (so much for your right to liberty) and I'm sure there are a plethora of laws that make you unhappy (so much for your right to the pursuit of happiness). Your mere existence gives you the right to live within the rules set by law and nothing more. Hell, there are a multitude of people who have lived within the rules and still had those rights stripped away.

[Veldan Rath]

And without any government or other organisations, what exactly gives or guarantees you those rights? Let's be honest, you only 'have' those rights because your constitution says you have those rights. And international conventions says you have them. And what 'is' a right if it is not enforced, guaranteed, or protected by anyone except yourself? In total anarchy, you have no rights - anyone can in principle take anything from you (including your life, liberty, or property) if he is, say, stronger or smarter than you. A right is merely a convention created by groups of people.

My government's job IS to guarantee those rights, it is the basis of this country's government.

No duh that if we fell into anarchy all is up for grabs, as the only faction that would look to protect those rights would be me.

What you seem to think is that we have privileges, and not rights.

[Being]

My government's job IS to guarantee those rights, it is the basis of this country's government.

No duh that if we fell into anarchy all is up for grabs, as the only faction that would look to protect those rights would be me.

What you seem to think is that we have privileges, and not rights.

I believe you are conflating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They have separate and distinct purposes.

[Enoch the Red]

Shows to me that you still have not understood the difference between territory and property. And you have nothing to show but anecdotes. Sorry, but that makes your opinion count for nothing.

That just shows to me that you've never owned a dog.

Anecdotes make opinions count for nothing? Since when? Of course I expect you to make your response to any further arguments without relying on any personal experiences, or original thought. If you don't, you have invalidated your argument.

You are not answering my question. And no it doesn't mean that.

You aren't reading my answer. I said they aren't enforced by the government, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And it's exactly what it means.

Fail.

Not fail. Read it again.

[GGT]

My mere existence gives me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We don't have a birthright to own property.

The US Governments (State and Fed) exist to protect those rights, with the rule of law. They do not give them to me, I already had them.

Our government protects our inalienable rights and equal treatment for race, ethnicity, gender, age, [*sexual orientation] and religion. Those are related to civil rights or human rights.

Owning property is a privilege, something we have to buy -or inherit- and gov't protects those legal contracts.

[earthJoker]

It is interesting to see that some here always retrain to the US constitution while this as is clearly British.

[Veldan Rath]

GGT...i'm not saying I have the right to free stuff...no kidding I have to purchase it. I have the right to property that I come to legally (for example, not stealing someone else's crap). The government does not give the right to have stuff, it protects my rights to have stuff, and everyone else's.

[earthJoker]

The government does not give the right to have stuff, it protects my rights to have stuff, and everyone else's.

This is only de jure a difference de facto it is the same thing.

[Veldan Rath]

This is only de jure a difference de facto it is the same thing.

No, it is NOT the same thing. Your interpretation means the government can take away anytime they want. Mine means they have to protect, and can take away only through due process.

[Being]

No, it is NOT the same thing. Your interpretation means the government can take away anytime they want. Mine means they have to protect, and can take away only through due process.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Many Americans have been forced to give up their life for the good of the country. In doing so they gave up both their liberty and happiness. And it can still happen today because that is the law and it was based on constitutional grounds.

[earthJoker]

No, it is NOT the same thing. Your interpretation means the government can take away anytime they want. Mine means they have to protect, and can take away only through due process.

No, my interpretation doesn't mean that. The government has to obey the law. That's why we have three branches.

The only way the executive can take away only if they apply the law, and in any case you always can have the courts to decide upon any act of the executive.

Not the legislative can of course decide to make laws to take away (taxes, fines ect.). Of course depending on the country the supreme court will check weather laws apply to the constitution. In Switzerland this is not the case, instead we have the referendum.

[GGT]

GGT...i'm not saying I have the right to free stuff...no kidding I have to purchase it. I have the right to property that I come to legally (for example, not stealing someone else's crap). The government does not give the right to have stuff, it protects my rights to have stuff, and everyone else's.

Sure, just saying there's a difference between birthrights that we all have, and owning property.