Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....

[qmikep]

You bring up some very interesting points here Doug. Are we sure the baker has a corporation or is he just a sole proprietor?

Assuming the baker did not have a corporation, I would still assume he applied for the privilege of a business license.

 

[Expat]

I think it is funny that people will accept that one gives up his property rights because he is required to acquire a business license or puts his assets in a corporation to lessen his legal liability. It is still his property. He should maintain all the rights that come with that.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think it is funny that people will accept that one gives up his property rights because he is required to acquire a business license or puts his assets in a corporation to lessen his legal liability. It is still his property. He should maintain all the rights that come with that.

You give up some of those rights as an owner when you enter into a legal contract with the state for protection. Kind of like the mob

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You give up some of those rights as an owner when you enter into a legal contract with the state for protection. Kind of like the mob

So, if you go to work as a public school teacher or take a tax credit for installing more insulation in your home, is it the same thing?

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, if you go to work as a public school teacher or take a tax credit for installing more insulation in your home, is it the same thing?

The teacher, yes. The tax credit no. There are no special rules for the tax credit that will be used to make you comply with other things.

 

[TRWXXA]

Your questions are a muddled mess. Are you asking me if I 'can' do these things in a legal sense? Or in a moral sense?



No, not in a moral sense. We can keep it simple. I can do whatever I want with my property up to the point that it initiates force against you or your property. I can shoot on my property. If I shoot from my property onto yours, then we have a problem.

You do not have a right to enter my property. If I allow you entrance, we have an inherent contract; you may enter my property on my terms. You are not forced to accept my terms. You have the option of leaving or not entering my property in the first place.



The property owner has every right to remove both you and your vehicle from his property for any reason he chooses, unless you have both agreed to terms in a contract that stipulate that he cannot. You do not have the right to park your car in my yard just because you own the car. That makes absolutely no sense.

Really? Discharge a firearm (even iinto the ground) on private property that is within city limits and see what happens.

You are going to "remove" a trespasser? Explain exactly how you are going to do that? If they are standing on your front lawn, are you going to pull a gun on them? Are you going to grab them and move them off your lawn by force? You might want to familiarize yourself with that state statutes regarding use of force, tough guy. The person standing uninvited on your grass hasn't even committed a misdemeanor, much less a crime that justifies use of force or threat of force. Even the police have to give the trespasser a lawful order to leave and the opportunity to leave before they could arrest them.

You going to hook a chain to their vehicle and drag into the street? Do you want to find out who a civil court says is liable for damage to the vehicle? You want to break into the vehicle and try to drive it off your property? There IS a criminal statute for that act.

I have school kids cut the corner of the street, through my yard all the time. I don't like it, but what can I do about it, Mr Property Rights Expert? Can I threaten them with violence? Can I pull a firearm on them? Can I shove them back onto the sidewalk? No I can't.

I could put up a fence... After I get approval of the city and the HOA. I could put up thick, thorny bushes. But I would probably be immediately ordered to rip them out, as they would block the sight lines of the intersection.

I could put up a sign. But all the experts on here say that a sign has no force of law. Now where do they say that? Oh yeah... When a business owner puts one up that says, "No guns allowed." Sure are lot of people that don't believe in "property rights" when it comes to that one.

You talk about "property rights" like they are an absolute. They are not. You really can not do anything you want on your property, can you?

 

[TRWXXA]

I think it is funny that people will accept that one gives up his property rights because he is required to acquire a business license or puts his assets in a corporation to lessen his legal liability. It is still his property. He should maintain all the rights that come with that.

Please submit a specific list of "all the rights".

 

[TRWXXA]

I've learned a new way to read the Constitution. For instance, it says "Congress shall make no law". I think it's saying that Congress can't make any laws. I think it's like that trick that teachers use to see if you read the instructions on the test where it says at the top to put your name down and then hand it in.

Further proof you haven't actually read the Constitution of the United States.

I wrote, "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicating there was more.

Punctuation is the difference between knowing your s**t, and knowing you're s**t.

 

[dross]

Please submit a specific list of "all the rights".

How about this one: The right to make a trespasser leave.

The law may not allow you to use deadly force, but you can certainly call the police and they'll make him leave. You won't even have to give a reason, because it's your property. All that's required is that you tell him to leave.

 

[TRWXXA]

Correct. Now please remove your car from my property. You are welcome to bring it back and park it on my property again when there's no gun in it. See?

Why? There is no gun in my car.

 

[dross]

Further proof you haven't actually read the Constitution of the United States.

I wrote, "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicating there was more.

Punctuation is the difference between knowing your s**t, and knowing you're s**t.

That was sarcasm, used to illustrate the flaw in your interpretation.

If two people agree on the meaning of the words, who decides what they mean?

 

[dross]

Why? There is no gun in my car.

Then you may stay.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The teacher, yes. The tax credit no. There are no special rules for the tax credit that will be used to make you comply with other things.

Teachers give up property rights just because of they are employed by the .IN?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Teachers give up property rights just because of they are employed by the .IN?

Can't carry a gun in their car can they and park in the teachers parking lot. I was talking about rights in general with teacher you threw into the mix.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Can't carry a gun in their car can they and park in the teachers parking lot. I was talking about rights in general with teacher you threw into the mix.

I'm just trying to understand. But we all have lost our right to carry/leave a gun in our cars while we park in a school. Were there other rights analogous to the store owner you were talking about?

 

[steveh_131]

Really? Discharge a firearm (even iinto the ground) on private property that is within city limits and see what happens.

Again, you're muddling the issues. Yes, some areas have oppressive laws. We're discussing my ethical position on property rights, not local ordinances.

You are going to "remove" a trespasser? Explain exactly how you are going to do that? If they are standing on your front lawn, are you going to pull a gun on them? Are you going to grab them and move them off your lawn by force? You might want to familiarize yourself with that state statutes regarding use of force, tough guy. The person standing uninvited on your grass hasn't even committed a misdemeanor, much less a crime that justifies use of force or threat of force. Even the police have to give the trespasser a lawful order to leave and the opportunity to leave before they could arrest them.

Call the police? Call a tow truck? Are you just being argumentative?

You going to hook a chain to their vehicle and drag into the street? Do you want to find out who a civil court says is liable for damage to the vehicle? You want to break into the vehicle and try to drive it off your property? There IS a criminal statute for that act.

Property owners have vehicles removed from their property by tow trucks all the time. This is nothing new.

You talk about "property rights" like they are an absolute. They are not. You really can not do anything you want on your property, can you?

Again, I thought we were discussing what property rights ought to mean. Not what local ordinances specify they mean.

Honestly, I think I'm done arguing with you. You haven't presented any coherent arguments and I'm not sure you even know what point I'm making that you're trying to argue against.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

The real question in a situation such as this is, "Does the State have legitimate authority to regulate businesses operating within its borders in any manner whatsoever?"

We may argue that there is too much or not enough, but that isn't the question I pose.

I believe that the State does have some reasonable authority to regulate activity that occurs within its borders. It can tell us that certain actions will be deemed criminal and will be punished by the State. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect the State to regulate activities within its borders.

Now I will be the first to agree that the State interferes way too much, and regulates way too much, but the concept that the State may regulate to my thinking is not unreasonable. If the State may not regulate then there is no State and anarchy may ensue.

The problems begin to arise as each individual member of the State has varying degrees of comfort with certain activities of the State and the regulations that the State makes for both businesses and individual human beings.

Consider the simple activity of buying a gallon of gasoline. Currently, the State clearly regulates exactly how much a "gallon" is. What if the State did not use such a heavy hand and every gas station in the country had different meanings for how much a "gallon" was? Now imagine everything we buy that is weighed or measured was a constant struggle to estimate just how much of a product we were buying. There are extremely positive benefits to having some regulations that make decision making a logical process.

Did the court go too far in this case? It depends upon each of our comfort levels with the regulations of the State.

Regards,

Doug

 

[steveh_131]

Consider the simple activity of buying a gallon of gasoline. Currently, the State clearly regulates exactly how much a "gallon" is. What if the State did not use such a heavy hand and every gas station in the country had different meanings for how much a "gallon" was? Now imagine everything we buy that is weighed or measured was a constant struggle to estimate just how much of a product we were buying. There are extremely positive benefits to having some regulations that make decision making a logical process.

The government did not invent units of measure.

The free market could easily handle such things.

 

[Libertarian01]

The government did not invent units of measure.

The free market could easily handle such things.

To Steveh_131,

I get what you are saying but do not agree on the outcome.

"Could" the free market handle it? Yes, clearly. To a point... The free market has no enforcement mechanism to deal with those who go against the grain.

Most electronic equipment, if not all, that is sold in the United States is Underwriters Laboratories approved. We will be hard pressed to find a piece of electronics for sale today that doesn't have the UL stamp on it, and this IS the free market - to a point.

The primary reason for this is that most large retailers refuse to sell anything that isn't UL approved, but that is due to fear of liability that they may face in a government court of law. Remove the government enforcement side and the value of selling only UL approved equipment goes way down.

And just because UL is a benchmark it isn't required. When I discuss buying gun safes I refuse to buy anything that isn't UL rated. However, there are many safes on the market that are not UL rated. The free market works only as well as the consumer is edumacated. It also works only to a limited extent. Many banks and financial institutions were A+ rated by not only one (1) but several free market ratings firms - right before they died.

There are problems on both sides of the fence when it comes to defining variables. This leads to my thought that at least with the government we voters DO have a say in how we expect things to work. Whether we are right or wrong is another matter entirely.

Regards,

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Article 1, Section 8:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

According to the framers, it is the government's job to "decide" what a gallon is.