tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post4610354403993113483..comments2023-10-03T07:01:41.144-05:00Comments on Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans: Refusal Of ServiceAlways On Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-26353432861421584202015-04-20T17:32:28.007-05:002015-04-20T17:32:28.007-05:00CI,
I'm introducing some of those topics becau...CI,<br />I'm introducing some of those topics because I'm trying to take the long view. What are -- or could be -- the unintended consequences of various issues, law suits, and court rulings?<br /><br />We'll have to postpone continuing this discussion. Bad weather moving in here, so I'll be shutting down the computers for the night.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-84964582048660683012015-04-20T14:45:32.360-05:002015-04-20T14:45:32.360-05:00Matters of faith require living that faith.....
I...<i>Matters of faith require living that faith.....</i><br /><br />I get that; but aren't all people sinners? Doesn't Romans 3:23 say "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard"? In living the faith, business owners provide goods and services to sinners, arguably, every time they conduct a transaction. Is "living the faith" an act of prioritizing sin?<br /><br /><i>How shall we now define marriage if not in the traditional sense of a union between one man and one woman?</i><br /><br />Polygamy is a good question. I'm no more a personal fan of this form of marriage than I am same sex......but marriage is a legal contract. It has a deeper religious meaning to many, but it is contract law. There is no small amount of history for legal contracting among multiple, consenting adults. There is also legal mechanisms available to skirt the current prohibition [aside from Biblical precedent], so it really boils down to not a question of lawfulness, but of a perception of morality. Certainly some mormons would question why such restriction is codified in law.<br /><br />It's an interesting tangent, thank you for raising it, but I'm still in Europe, and it's getting late here.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-55054660585672545222015-04-20T14:33:54.990-05:002015-04-20T14:33:54.990-05:00Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that so...<i>Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that some Christian businesses are apparently be targeted the past few years?</i><br /><br />Targeted is a loaded and biased term; I've not ever heard of an Atheist business denying someone the right to their labor [which they should be able to]. I agree with you that they shouldn't be forced to, but have Atheists filed suit in order to be lawfully able to refuse goods or services? One would think, that somebody would have brought suit based on religious discrimination, had that occurred.<br /><br />Without much evidence to go on it's difficult to say.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-84006282279965479972015-04-20T14:05:31.148-05:002015-04-20T14:05:31.148-05:00CI,
If I were an Atheist who owned a private busin...CI,<br /><i>If I were an Atheist who owned a private business, why should I not receive equal treatment under the law?</i><br /><br />Offhand, I say that if as an atheist florist you refused to be a part of a religious ceremony to which you have strong objections, you would be within your personal rights. Question: Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that some Christian businesses are apparently be targeted the past few years?Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-39868985243077372052015-04-20T14:02:56.055-05:002015-04-20T14:02:56.055-05:00CI,
I assure you that Warren has no desire to be d...CI,<br />I assure you that Warren has no desire to be <i>desire to be special little snowflake</i>.<br /><br />You are correct that there is no right to marry -- in the sense of an enumerated right in the Constitution, anyway.<br /><br />I guess the problem goes back to the definition of the word <i>marriage</i>. It has both religious and civil connotations; as far as I know, the church can perform a marriage ceremony, but it isn't a legal union without the registration of the marriage at the government department which registers such ceremonies. <br /><br />The definition of <i>marriage</i> as the union of one man and one woman wasn't disputed until recently, however, was it? Disputed to any extent, I mean.<br /><br />More to the point, however, is the matter of <i>free exercise</i> as that term applies to enumerated rights. Matters of faith require <b>living</b> that faith, and I cannot imagine that the authors of our Constitution didn't understand that aspect of faith.<br /><br />--------------------<br /><br />I have a question, and I don't mean it to be snarky in any way: What about polygamous marriages? Should they be recognized as legal? My point in asking this question: How shall we now define marriage if not in the traditional sense of a union between one man and one woman? Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-17741448095373745382015-04-20T11:14:32.307-05:002015-04-20T11:14:32.307-05:00I'm going to disregard Warren’s desire to be s...I'm going to disregard Warren’s desire to be special little snowflake, as he pursues treatment and status unavailable to the citizenry writ large. <br /><br />No, rights are not the same as privileges; that should be remembered when some proffer that gay Americans don't have a "right" to marry. Straight Americans don't either.<br /><br />Further, while every private entrepreneur <i>should</i> have the right to dispense of one's labor [yet sadly doesn't], participating in the market as a private enterprise, not a religiously affiliated business [hospitals, charities, etc].....your freedom of religion is not compromised. Attempting to equate barter or tender for goods and/or services....with the freely exercised worship of ones faith....cheapens said faith in my estimation. If I were an Atheist who owned a private business, why should I not receive equal treatment under the law?<br /><br />And ironically, this argument is only legal applicable to those faiths that are sanctioned by the State. Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-21545949049382673792015-04-20T11:12:30.467-05:002015-04-20T11:12:30.467-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-17538574274689660202015-04-20T04:27:44.399-05:002015-04-20T04:27:44.399-05:00CI,
Special legal privileges based on religious fa...CI,<br /><i>Special legal privileges based on religious faith, not available to every citizen? Yes, that's what I oppose.</i><br /><br />Wait a minute.<br /><br />Aren't we talking about rights? Rights are not the same thing as privileges.<br /><br />How much authority should the government have over rights, especially enumerated rights?Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-64448134731402989972015-04-20T04:23:07.831-05:002015-04-20T04:23:07.831-05:00Warren,
Yes, the matter of an enumerated right is ...Warren,<br />Yes, the matter of <i>an enumerated right</i> is significant in this discussion.<br /><br />Today, the focus is often on the clause <i>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion</i>. But, clearly, there is the other clause, too:<br /><br /><i>Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]</i>.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-33697471767720732792015-04-20T01:38:15.090-05:002015-04-20T01:38:15.090-05:00"Now, if an argument being proffered [by Warr...<i>"Now, if an argument being proffered [by Warren or others] is that only private businesses who's owner subscribes to a State sanction religious faith should be able to reuse service....that would be a special privilege.</i>"<br /><br />The only place I made that argument was in your imagination.<br /><br />For several reasons you are wrong, anyway; religion is specifically enumerated in the first amendment. as I hope you know by now. where the right of any private business to the dispensation of their labor to whomever they choose, is not, even if it should be it isn't an enumerated right.Therefore.forcing the service of a religious person when it is against their religious beliefs is a violation of a clearly enumerated right whereas the right of a homosexual to demand service anywhere they damned well please is obviously not.<br /><br />Another reason would be the government is forbidden to sanction a specific religion. ie "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .Therefore your statement falls into the realm of fallacy<br /><br />Hillsdale College offers a free online course called <a href="http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution-101-signup-ppc/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=con101" rel="nofollow">constitution 101</a>. That isn't a rip, you would be well served to use it.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17720528359843578475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-34853674407398898532015-04-19T23:05:34.610-05:002015-04-19T23:05:34.610-05:00Special legal privileges based on religious faith,...Special legal privileges based on religious faith, not available to every citizen? Yes, that's what I oppose. The right of <i>any</i> private business to the dispensation of their labor to whomever they choose? That is what I advocate.<br /><br />Now, if an argument being proffered [by Warren or others] is that <i>only</i> private businesses who's owner subscribes to a State sanction religious faith should be able to reuse service....<i>that</i> would be a special privilege.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-27726944757546630792015-04-19T13:15:21.371-05:002015-04-19T13:15:21.371-05:00CI,
Haven't you been railing against religious...CI,<br />Haven't you been railing against religious privilege or something along those lines?<br /><br />How is it religious privilege if any reason is <i>the right to refuse service to anyone</i>?<br /><br />This has been a long thread, so I can't readily find the exact comment I'm seeking.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-62508253693359694252015-04-19T13:10:59.417-05:002015-04-19T13:10:59.417-05:00That's exactly what I've been saying. Any ...That's exactly what I've been saying. Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. What made you think that I was saying otherwise?Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-52145952470189830212015-04-19T12:52:10.472-05:002015-04-19T12:52:10.472-05:00CI,
a private business should be able to refuse s...CI,<br /><i> a private business should be able to refuse service to whomever they desire….based on...religious faith, etc….</i><br /><br />Wait a minute. I thought that you have been arguing that a Christian business can indeed refuse service based on religious convictions?Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-72380038734106881382015-04-19T09:29:58.062-05:002015-04-19T09:29:58.062-05:00And although you don't care about "specia...<i>And although you don't care about "special legal privileges based on religion." you quite evidently believe in special legal privilege for homosexual activists.</i><br /><br />Oh, I care about them…enough to oppose them and the anti-liberty bigots who support them.<br /><br />As I stated earlier, I completely agree with you that another citizen does not have a right to my [or your] labor, and that a private business should be able to refuse service to whomever they desire….based on attire, demeanor, race, sexual orientation, religious faith, etc….Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-48276089015175656082015-04-19T09:01:50.139-05:002015-04-19T09:01:50.139-05:00"And, if you can wipe the foam and spittle fr..."<i>And, if you can wipe the foam and spittle from your mouth,..</i><br />Mind if I do it on your diaper?<br /><br />There's that comprehension thing again.<br />I didn't say my rights were violated, I was specifically referring to the gay activists attacks of business owners religious freedom. You know, the first amendment to the Constitution. You've heard of it haven't you or does your screen name actually mean anti-constitutional insurgent?<br /><br />And although you don't care about "special legal privileges based on religion." you quite evidently believe in special legal privilege for homosexual activists.<br /><br />Like I said, I get it now your just an anti-religious bigot. There isn't much point in carrying this conversation any farther.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17720528359843578475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-21897818772876217482015-04-19T00:01:17.378-05:002015-04-19T00:01:17.378-05:00And, if you can wipe the foam and spittle from you...And, if you can wipe the foam and spittle from your mouth, what Constitutional, enumerated rights are you being denied based upon what you <i>believe</i>?<br /><br />I give a damn about liberty for American citizens, not special legal privileges based on religion.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-32263935687419848422015-04-18T23:19:08.537-05:002015-04-18T23:19:08.537-05:00Thank you for showing your true colors. Petulant r...Thank you for showing your true colors. Petulant rage is always entertaining. It's good to know who the trolls are.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-9791396214228018432015-04-18T21:25:27.790-05:002015-04-18T21:25:27.790-05:00Excuse me CI, I just didn't realize you were j...Excuse me CI, I just didn't realize you were just another anti-religious bigot.<br /><br />While you were busy obsessing about supposed and imaginary breaches of the liberties of homosexuals, by me, I was talking about the very real violation of the Constitutionally numerated rights of Christians. <br />Now I understand why you don't give a damn.<br /><br />As far as English being my first language, if it were my fourth or fifth, I would still be more proficient than you given your poor comprehension skills.<br /><br />Internet not for me? really? I was on the "Internet" before it was known as the Internet and I seem to have weathered the attacks of those more literate than you.<br /><br />Defensive? Go piss up a rope!Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17720528359843578475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-59527130744097958322015-04-17T11:15:46.660-05:002015-04-17T11:15:46.660-05:00And the differences in those theories do make for ...<i>And the differences in those theories do make for an interesting discussion.</i><br /><br />I agree!Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-86143021310030758192015-04-17T11:03:09.716-05:002015-04-17T11:03:09.716-05:00CI,
Addendum: Not defensiveness, IMO, but rather i...CI,<br />Addendum: Not <i>defensiveness</i>, IMO, but rather irritation.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-11636280087066789962015-04-17T11:02:43.570-05:002015-04-17T11:02:43.570-05:00CI,
The warning to "back off" may have b...CI,<br />The warning to <i>"back off"</i> may have been typed in In Warren's capacity as one of the blog administrators here. Warren designed my avatar and this blog template, so he and I go back a number of years.<br /><br />It is interesting to me that you and Warren are having a heated discussion. The two of you do have common ground on several issues -- particularly Second Amendment rights.<br /><br /><i> I will stand by my assessment that he has odd theories of liberty v. tyranny.</i><br /><br />I imagine that he would say the same about your theories. And the differences in those theories do make for an interesting discussion.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-73581075575169202042015-04-17T09:41:23.041-05:002015-04-17T09:41:23.041-05:00AOW - Noted. The need to repeatedly tell me to &qu...AOW - Noted. The need to repeatedly tell me to "back off" conveys defensiveness to me. I will stand by my assessment that he has odd theories of liberty v. tyranny.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-27198014610342093432015-04-17T09:39:30.308-05:002015-04-17T09:39:30.308-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4320479736034351430.post-91187958466950869182015-04-17T07:08:39.115-05:002015-04-17T07:08:39.115-05:00CI,
Warren defensive?
No, he isn't.
I ha...CI,<br />Warren defensive? <br /><br />No, he isn't. <br /><br />I have the advantage of knowing Warren personally (face-to-face, not merely on the web) and assure you that he is not defensive. And English is his first language.Always On Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08192688822955022541noreply@blogger.com