U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters

[Ally]

No the concept of rights is what allows children to know not to steal. They might not know the word, but the concept they absolutely do know and it is is instinctual. Which means there is absolutely such a thing as rights.

As for pubs being a private place, isn't pub shorthand for "public house"?

[Tom_Wescott]

Babbles

When I was told it was a woman with a room to let, I asked why on earth there'd be a law saying she had to let anyone in her home. I think that's patently absurd. But where Robert and I disagree is that I believe a Motel 6 or Howard Johnson's should let ANYONE with the money stay at their establishment, and that if you don't agree with that, you should probably not go into the motel business. Having said that, I believe clubs that are established by individuals should certainly have the right to not admit anyone they choose, such as women, if it's not condusive to the purpose of that club, and only if the club is not a public entity. Women can always go form their own clubs, or join a unisex club, etc. There's nothing inequal in such a thing, and I don't see exclusivity as a negative thing. I still don't understand what could be accomplished by picketing a dead person at their funeral. I'm sure I missed something there.

Of course every single thing was invented by men until about a century ago

As long as we agree it was a male neanderthal who invented the wheel and fire.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

You didn't miss anything. It is only members of this church who see some kind of logic and rational thought in what they do.

c.d.

[mariab]

As long as we agree it was a male neanderthal who invented the wheel and fire.

Not sure if it was a Neanderthal or a Cro Magnon, and too lazy to look it up.
What's your point, Tom? Are you kinda identifying with the Neanderthal? This is sooo cute. You totally cracked me up.

Clubs are something else. They're exclusive by definition, and I'm sure by law as well.

[Ally]

Hi Tom,

You didn't miss anything. It is only members of this church who see some kind of logic and rational thought in what they do.

c.d.

That's not true. There is a very logical and rational purpose to what they do---they get attention to their cause. If they picketed gay weddings or even gay funerals, they wouldn't get a minute on CNN and no one would know who they were. Picketing the funerals of soldiers however, is just the sort of thing to get them national press attention and to be known throughout the land, except by you know, people who haven't read a newspaper in a few years.

[Robert]

Hi Ally

But surely children don't start off with a list of rights. Aren't the rights you speak of modified over a period of time, so that exceptions are made, perhaps when they clash with other rights? E.g. if everyone has a right to life, whence capital punishment? I don't mind capital punishment myself, but that's because I don't believe that everyone has a right to life. (I've been talking of rights here without putting "rights" in quotes as it's too time-consuming)

I don't think benevolence or morality is instinctive. I think it grows, as people learn that other people have a lot in common with them, even if they do appear very different on the surface.

If the state nationalised the pubs, they'd be public places. They'd also probably go broke within a few years.

[Natalie Severn]

Originally Posted by mariab
Of course every single thing was invented by men until about a century ago

except for the art of "cohabiting" with the rulers of other countries to increase your empire .Cleopatra made an art of it 2 thousand years ago with Caesar and Mark Anthony -----mind Mubarek cohabited with quite a few come to think of it............

[mariab]

except for the art of "cohabiting" with the rulers of other countries to increase your empire .Cleopatra made an art of it 2 thousand years ago with Caesar and Mark Anthony -----mind Mubarek cohabited with quite a few come to think of it............

And before Mubarak, the French embraced cohabitation, with all imagineable perversity. ;-)

If they picketed gay weddings or even gay funerals, they wouldn't get a minute on CNN and no one would know who they were. Picketing the funerals of soldiers however, is just the sort of thing to get them national press attention and to be known throughout the land, except by you know, people who haven't read a newspaper in a few years.

Anybody knows if there was picketing of soldiers' funerals during the Vietnam War protests? Somehow I don't think so? Just wondering.

[c.d.]

That's not true. There is a very logical and rational purpose to what they do---they get attention to their cause. If they picketed gay weddings or even gay funerals, they wouldn't get a minute on CNN and no one would know who they were. Picketing the funerals of soldiers however, is just the sort of thing to get them national press attention and to be known throughout the land, except by you know, people who haven't read a newspaper in a few years.

Agreed. I was referring to their basic argument (which I think they actually do believe) which is that the deaths of American soldiers are God's punishment for America supporting gay rights.

c.d.

[Ally]

Hi Ally

But surely children don't start off with a list of rights. Aren't the rights you speak of modified over a period of time, so that exceptions are made, perhaps when they clash with other rights? E.g. if everyone has a right to life, whence capital punishment? I don't mind capital punishment myself, but that's because I don't believe that everyone has a right to life. (I've been talking of rights here without putting "rights" in quotes as it's too time-consuming)

Everyone has a right to life. But your right ends where my right begins. The capital punishment is a red herring because one could easily turn it around to: well I can't kill this man to defend myself because he has a right to life. One person's rights don't supersede another's. A right is a principle of entitlement, but that doesn't mean you can't lose them by your own actions. Having rights doesn't mean you don't have to be accountable for your actions. You can lose a right, by violating the rights of others. I have a right to my property, but I can't claim anything I want as mine simply because I believe it to be so.

I don't think benevolence or morality is instinctive.

I don't believe in morality at all. I believe in ethics.

[mariab]

I don't believe in morality at all. I believe in ethics.

Nice touch. Completely agree.

[Natalie Severn]

And before Mubarak, the French embraced cohabitation, with all imagineable perversity. ;-)

true!

[Natalie Severn]

I don't believe in morality at all. I believe in ethics.

Agreed!

[Robert]

Hi Ally

Just as long as you don't believe in the inalienable rights with which people have been endowed by their Creator. Obviously I agree that people can lose their rights. I just think it's simpler to leave off talking about rights. I guess the same goes for duties.

I think that people have certain beliefs. They call these beliefs principles. They call the beliefs of others with which they disagree, prejudices.

[mariab]

I am completely baffled too. On the one hand Robert is saying he doesn't believe in rights, then he's saying this woman has the right to refuse service. On the one hand, everything is decided by committee but if the committee goes against this woman's personal preference, then that's wrong.
I am totally confused???

It's pretty clear that Robert and legal terminology don't mix well. I had a hell of a time explaining to him the legal term “crime against humanity“ a couple months ago in the Huck Finn thread, but on my third try he got it.
Other than that, Robert is a fine Ripperologist with a tremendous sense of humour.

Quote Robert:
I think that people have certain beliefs. They call these beliefs principles. They call the beliefs of others with which they disagree, prejudices.
And an Oscar Wildish sense of sentence construction.