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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Graystone who wrote (12197)	2/14/2019 2:35:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

The law is pretty clear and no amount of parsing can change that. Which is why I said - "Because the law says you do.". But 1 - What the law says is not the same as what's libertarian, or what's right, or just, or what the law should be. 2 - The law is constitutionally dubious. 3 - The law is somewhat unjust. 4 - Its not as clear as you make it out to be. There are constitutional principles, and other laws (like en.wikipedia.org to name just one example). 5 - In this case its state law. National law wouldn't impose the same restriction, neither would state law in all 50 states. 6 - The law (to the extent that it actually is clear) says you can't discriminate against people based on their membership in certain classes. Whether the baker was doing that, and doing so in a way forbidden by the law isn't clear. He has asserted (and to my knowledge no one has presented any evidence to to overcome the assertion) that he would be happy to serve homosexuals, just not to bake a cake celebrating a same sex wedding. Its the purpose of the cake not the customer that's the problem for him. If a straight person wanted to buy a cake for a celebration of the wedding presumably he wouldn't want to sell it. If the couple in question wanted to buy a birthday cake, presumably he would sell it to them. This is categorically false - "But there isn't anything contradictory in being generally open to the public but not willing to sever every segment of the public." Nonsense. There isn't anything at all contradictory about it. What the law says is irrelevant to that point. Its relevant to whether you are allowed to act in a certain way, but if it forbids X that doesn't mean X is contradictory. Nine year old children just need to be asked if they want to labour away all day and if they do, tally ho, let's go? If your asserting the kid was asked to labor away all day then the burden of proof is on you. If your not making such an assertion then your comment is irrelevant. Child labour laws go back much further than Libertarian principles Both questionable and irrelevant. and in fact the liberty of children to be children has been protected by law for a long time If you asserting that she was not allowed to be a kid then the burden of proof is on you. If not then your comment is irrelevant. Your suggestion that the 9 year old asked her mother to place the ad underscores for me that you have no children and know no nine year olds. Nonsense. This convention states that a person under 18 cannot work in a facility that may jeopardize their safety, health, or morals. If your asserting that she was made to work in a way that jeopardized her health, safety, or morals, then the burden of proof is on you. If not, then your statement is irrelevant.