You are not. Why lie about it? Just admit it. It is freeing to admit it.
If you were for freedom and liberty, you would be for allowing a man to use his freedom to decide who he wants to engage in commerce. Instead you are for using the govt as your weapon of choice to force him to engage with people of your preferred groups.
I bet you cant even see the hypocrisy of your position, If a man came into a restaurant wearing a MAGA hat, you would be all for the owner throwing this “Hater” out of his restaurant. On the other hand, if a Christian doesnt want to bake a cake for a same sex union, they must be forced! We can use the Govt to force them out of business and straddle them with huge legal bills. That will teach them. They must conduct their lives as I demand! Is that the freedom and liberty that you love? The one where you can force people to do things if their position doesnt agree with yours?
If this is the angle you want to take, then I’m down with that. I can play, too.
If you were really for freedom, then you wouldn’t support government thugs to violently silence a person just because they once made a promise not to speak about a subject (i.e., “enforcing” a “non-disclosure” agreement).
Yes…That is the freedom I am talking about. Who’s land is it? Who’s property is it? People do not have the right to sit on someone elses property. If I have a business, say a coffee shop, people do not have the right to just enter and sit down because they feel like it… As the owner, I grant that permission. If I revoke it, for what ever reason, they must leave. That is my position on the subject. Sit in protesters can protest on public property, not private property.
Let the record stand that komobu has no issue with what the image depicts or with using the state to back up racial discrimination. An interesting notion of freedom.
Freedom means people make decisions for themselves whether you or I like it or not… Freedom does NOT involve you dictating what they must do so that your FEELINGS are in tact… Our country was founded upon it. As for discrimination, I am completely for it no matter what private individual it is that does it. Citizens should have the FREEDOM to engage or decline to engage with who ever they choose for what ever reason they choose. They shouldn’t even be required to state a reason at all. Just No is good enough.
Who’s property is it? If the property belongs to the govt, all the power to them. They can sit all day and night. If the property belongs to an individual, they have no right to be there.
Your trying to obfuscate the issue of freedom or change the goal posts. I am talking about freedom for the individual. I am for it. You have displayed by your writing that you are against it. See. I cant force you to think my way because you have freedom to think what you want.
You on the other hand will post picture of MLK in an attempt to ridicule me or silence me because I dont think your way. Too Bad. Freedom doesnt work that way. Did I tell you I was for freedom?
Now on your subject of contract law, type out a scenario and I will try to answer it as concisely as I know how.
And I see your way as bleak. My way allows for respect and consideration of all individuals. Your way allows for the govt to control all individuals. (Look what happened to Venezuela. Not to long ago it was a great place to live. Who uses the Billyclub in Venezuela? I bet it is Maduro and his thugs. People like you put him in power.) Your way goes bad quick when there is a person in office that you dont like, as Bush Jr or Trump. My way limits all of their power and places it on individuals. My rights end where yours begin. If it is your property, I have no right to it. It is yours to do with what you wish whether it offends me or not. That is what I am for.
Not just land. What about the lunch counter you brought up or the Christian Baker. In those cases it was the Govt forcing a private citizen to serve another against his will. No one should be forced by the govt to provide a good or service that they dont want to. And for me it works even if I dont like the outcome. The congresswoman Omar has every right to Hate Israelis and not serve them in her private business as an individual. As a member of Govt, she forfeited that right. But if she resigns and goes back to Minnesota and opens up a hotel or something, it should be her right to deny patrons that she doesnt want.
Why should anyone have to use persuasion to get someone else to leave their property? Since you brought “persuasion” up into this, should a Woman have to use “Persuasion” to get an unknown intruder to leave her apartment? Thats pretty crazy isnt it? It is her property. Just like it is the restaurant owners property. If he suddenly decides he doesnt want an individual in/on his property, they should be forced to leave. He shouldnt have to deal with people whose only reason for being there is to stir up trouble or cause a spectacle.
Under my system, people and the government would be restrained against using force against another person. That is not the case in Venezuela.
Incorrect. My way restrains the use of government against anyone who doesn’t attack another individual. Your way demands that big government remove a person from a plot of land whenever some particular person demands it.
My way eliminates the power of government to constrain a person’s freedom of movement. One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. In line with this simple principle, no one has the right to use violence remove another individual—such as a peaceful sit-in protestor—from a premises.
The most beautiful part about my system is that it allows individuals to adopt whatever set of property norms they think is best. The government would be neutral on the matter and allow them all to exist side-by-side, refusing to pick any winners and losers.
The individuals in question would be allowed peacefully stage a sit-in and the managers of each location would be free to decide on whether or not to serve them. It works out for both sides.
