Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown
Originally Posted by boneyard bill
But I have already pointed out that the meaning of free speech in the constitution, given the legal meanings of that day, may not have anything like the libertarian meaning applied today. So relying on the constitution, insofar as one would apply the "original intent" doctrine at least, may not be a very good safeguard.
With respect to arguing it from a natural law point of view, I agree that what you are attempting here fits into that category, but I am suggesting that
Upon asking the question of where do you get the right to force a business to not discriminate I received emotional driven platitudes punctuated with, legal positivism, "it's the Law".
Although, discrimination is repugnant to many, of which I am one of those many, it is not a crime. (In case you thought I approved of Gay, Race or Religious discrimination I DO NOT APPROVE) The phrases "No victim, no crime" and "Mind your own business" falls on ears of
First, what is 'the NAP' (for those unlikely few of you)?
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The non-aggression principle (NAP)... is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that
Updated 01-24-2014 at 07:20 PM by Sentient Void