Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4044)	12/31/2016 2:06:55 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358584

I'm against them [blue laws] for practical reasons and as a matter of principle, but I don't see them as unconstitutional. I see blue laws as an example of constituencies being indifferent to "others" and imposing its values, in this case, religious values. Sunday is declared the Sabbath despite others having different designated days. Then it's declared that the rest of us can't sell or shop on those days. To me this is an example of coercion by the dominant group--forced conformity. It is aimed at the others, not the in-group, because in-group members don't need the law. If one's religion says it's wrong to do business on Sunday, then one won't, naturally, so the law is, at best, simply redundant. It's only those whose religion doesn't care about business on Sunday who are constrained by the law. That makes it hostile, IMO. I'm not going to try to make a case of it being unconstitutional. My brain isn't in the mood for that today. And you're much more into and knowledgeable about differentiation among rights than I am. But I will argue that it is coercive and a constraint on the freedom of fellow citizens, and, er, not nice. I thing some things that fall under "reproductive rights" should be considered natural rights I'm extremely grateful for the Enlightenment and to our founding fathers for establishing the notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that came with it. To me that established a requirement to accord basic human dignity to all our fellow citizens. All means all. When I think about basic rights, I think first about the right of the individual to his person. No one can force thoughts on us or touch on us, for starters. No one can tell us that we can't get a mole removed of that we must get a mole removed. It's our person. The next immediate freedom is of intimate association, the most intimate being family. No one can tell us that we must marry or can't marry or whom to marry. No one can tell us that we can't reproduce or must reproduce or with whom to reproduce. Whatever label technically applies, IMO they are just basic rights, first and second order, and are subsumed by the Constitution even if not enumerated. I'd agree that its more often the courts protecting or not protecting rights then it is the courts infringing on them Thanks for weighing in on that.