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

[Robert]

Hi CD

If you trust to the maturity of the electorate you will not find them removing free speech from people, purely on the grounds of some pet hate. They know very well who the scumbags are, and there will be a sizeable majority agreement.

You say the Founding Fathers gave rights to people. Putting aside for the moment that I don't believe in rights, I don't understand how the Founding Fathers can give what's not theirs to give. If people have rights, that should be because the people as a whole give their approval - not because the Founding Fathers decreed it.

[c.d.]

Hi CD

If you trust to the maturity of the electorate you will not find them removing free speech from people, purely on the grounds of some pet hate. They know very well who the scumbags are, and there will be a sizeable majority agreement.

You say the Founding Fathers gave rights to people. Putting aside for the moment that I don't believe in rights, I don't understand how the Founding Fathers can give what's not theirs to give. If people have rights, that should be because the people as a whole give their approval - not because the Founding Fathers decreed it.

Hi Robert,

You have a lot more faith in human nature than I do. Republicans hate the Democrats. Democrats hate the Republicans. There are whites who hate blacks and vice versa. Christian versus Jew. Heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are plenty of people who want to remove the rights of scumbags and they also want the right to determine who is a scumbag.

The people ratified the Constitution and its amendments as written by the founding fathers.

c.d.

[ChainzCooper]

Hi CD

If you trust to the maturity of the electorate you will not find them removing free speech from people, purely on the grounds of some pet hate. They know very well who the scumbags are, and there will be a sizeable majority agreement.

You say the Founding Fathers gave rights to people. Putting aside for the moment that I don't believe in rights, I don't understand how the Founding Fathers can give what's not theirs to give. If people have rights, that should be because the people as a whole give their approval - not because the Founding Fathers decreed it.

Ah,but the founding fathers never said these rights were decreed by them, but rather God given
Jordan

[Tom_Wescott]

The people ratified the Constitution and its amendments as written by the founding fathers.

...who were white and heterosexual.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Ah well, I cannot contact him - the long distance phone bill would be crippling.

[c.d.]

...who were white and heterosexual.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

c.d.

[Ally]

Robert,

If you don't believe in rights, then how can you believe that anything whatsoever should be illegal? If one does not have an inherent right to one's life or property, then the taking of that life or property could not be sanctioned.

Or do you believe in the might makes right principle and people can have whatever they have the strength to take, including your life, your house or your wife? Because she doesn't have the right to say no?

[Tom_Wescott]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Not a thing. White heterosexual males have always made the best countries. We invent everything too. Except for peanut butter, which was invented by an ex-slave from my home state named George Washington Carver, God rest his soul.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Tom, this was a guest house or hotel, i.e. the woman wasn't just letting a room in her own home. I don't see why anyone should be telling her who she must have in her hotel.

Sorry, but I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone should want to go back to the days when people could stick up signs in such places saying "No Blacks," "No Jews," "No Irish" or whatever.

[mariab]

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d.
The people ratified the Constitution and its amendments as written by the founding fathers.

...who were white and heterosexual.

Yes Tom, and the wheel (reportedly the most important invention for humanity) was invented by Neanderthalers (or the Cro Magnon), so what does this imply, if anything at all?
Duh. Of course every single thing was invented by men until about a century ago (when Marie Curie invented radiology and helped inventing X ray scanning, during WWI).

Blimey, Chris, it doesn't leave much to eat.

LOL.

[Ally]

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???

[Robert]

Hi Ally

I'm not so much talking about legal rights, as the moral rights or human rights or whatever you want to call them, on which the legal rights are supposedly based. I'm trying to get rid of these metaphysical entities. If I see a man's wallet sticking out of his pocket, then (assuming the question enters my head - which it doesn't!) I don't say to myself "This man has a right to his wallet, therefore I ought not to steal it." I just say "I ought not to steal this guy's wallet."

I can't prove that I ought not to steal it - how could anyone prove a thing like that? It's just my gut feeling.

[Ally]

Yes you might not think "this man has a right to his wallet" and simplify it down to "I ought not to steal his wallet" but you know it is the underlying principle, because otherwise why wouldn't you steal the wallet?

[c.d.]

I just saw a member of the Westboro Baptist church on tv gloating over the decision. It was enough to make you throw up on the spot. But they also played the statement of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts saying that they (the Court) cannot stifle debate in this country.

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi Ally

Children know very well that they shouldn't steal, before any concept of "rights" ever enters their heads.

If I said that the hotelier has a right to pick her guests, then that was a slip on my part. I might conceivably have said it at some point in the past, but not I think today.

Chris, I don't want to see signs up saying "No this, no that." As far as public services are concerned, there should be no discrimination. But a hotel is a private business. In the same way, I think people should be allowed to smoke in pubs, if the landlord permits. The Government calls pubs public places, but they are private places.