NationStates

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Galloism wrote:That's a hard argument - no one, at least in the United States, has unrestricted ownership of property. We even pay a tax on the land in most states.

In practical terms, we probably don't really "own" property. We have a really permissive lease.

And we’re back to removing the government.

Galloism wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
And we’re back to removing the government.

Overthrowing the government and establishing your own kingship would establish unrestricted property ownership.

It would also be treason.

Yusseria wrote:

San Lumen wrote:That's completely insane.

Wow, you've completely persuaded me.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:I love that this is the refrain of the thread, yet as soon as they're contradicted, it comes back "Well you can't just ASSERT things! It's not settled because I'm disputing it!"

It would be hilarious.

Like if it’s what gets ya off, go ahead as long as you’re not looking to enforce it on someone else’s property.

Yusseria wrote:Then you completely misunderstand the purpose of debate, which of course is not surprising.

Ah, don't worry. Businesses already discriminate based on political views.

The government.

Of course, if the government changed the law to give itself ownership over all businesses then you'd have a point.

It hasn't.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Galloism wrote:That's a hard argument - no one, at least in the United States, has unrestricted ownership of property. We even pay a tax on the land in most states.

In practical terms, we probably don't really "own" property. We have a really permissive lease.

And we’re back to removing the government.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Nah. The government is the chief body responsible for protecting property rights and individual rights, utilizing force when necessary.

"Protecting property rights"

Rights created by whom?

Ors Might wrote:In the sense that it ain’t theirs.

But it is, in every real (ie not illusory) sense.

Yusseria wrote:And that would also be a useless-non answer. Saying something is "settled" isn't really an answer in a debate thread.

It certainly is. If some Brit wanted to waltz in and cry about the uppity colonies splitting off, my answer to them would be the same. Some matters are settled, and no amount of bellyaching will change it.

Hm, personal attacks as opposed to debate. Pseudo-intellectualism 101.

What exactly is "my type"?

The type of person who thinks that ownership justifies segregation and discrimination, of course!

Yusseria wrote:In the sense that someone else has a legal right to the property, not the government.

"Legal right"

Remind me who creates the law again?

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Galloism wrote:Overthrowing the government and establishing your own kingship would establish unrestricted property ownership.

It would also be treason.

Or what if we restricted the government through functions we have already used and are included in the government to restrict it.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
I don;t understand why in our scenario a gay couple who traveled a long distance for a wedding should be denied service at a hotel being paid for by someone else.

Should the couple getting married have thought to ask will our gay and non white friends be welcome at your hotel?

If so why?

Why should this hotel be able to ruin someone experience or and potentially our happy couples whole wedding too because they are denying friends of theirs rooms they paid for?

Their property their rules.

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Where’s the insanity? That’s the logical conclusion of the hotel cancelling their reservation.

so the hotel decides they are going to selectively cancel the reservation of anyone not straight or white attending the wedding at the hotel when they arrive?

Keep in mind here for this scenario its not the gay couple's reservation these rooms were paid for by the couple getting married.

San Lumen wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
Their property their rules.

so in other words if the hotel wants to they should be able to deny anyone not heterosexual and white to stay at their hotel for a wedding and tell the couple who booked it sorry we didnt know these people where attending and we dont welcome them. They cannot stay here or attend the wedding.

You've not only ruined those attending experience but potentially the entire wedding.

Ors Might wrote:Are you asking who created the legal protections for property or the reasons why the protections were made?

Apparently eminent domain doesn’t exist.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
Like if it’s what gets ya off, go ahead as long as you’re not looking to enforce it on someone else’s property.

But they are. They're enforcing it on US property.

Yusseria wrote:Then you completely misunderstand the purpose of debate, which of course is not surprising.

The purpose of debate is discussion of worthy matters, not pissing over how unfair it is that the world has left you behind.

Ah, don't worry. Businesses already discriminate based on political views.

Libertarians to the back of the bus, please.

The government.

Of course, if the government changed the law to give itself ownership over all businesses then you'd have a point.

It hasn't.

If the government decided to do literally anything it wanted with any business in the US, it could do it. It chooses not to, day after day, but it could do it.

So in what sense is having absolute power and the legal ability to exercise it over something the moment you decide to act not ownership?

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:so the hotel decides they are going to selectively cancel the reservation of anyone not straight or white attending the wedding at the hotel when they arrive?

Keep in mind here for this scenario its not the gay couple's reservation these rooms were paid for by the couple getting married.

I imagine they’re still just as screwed as anyone else who got their reservation cancelled.

San Lumen wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
Their property their rules.

so in other words if the hotel wants to they should be able to deny anyone not heterosexual and white to stay at their hotel for a wedding and tell the couple who booked it sorry we didnt know these people where attending and we dont welcome them. They cannot stay here or attend the wedding.

You've not only ruined those attending experience but potentially the entire wedding. But tis their property and their rules.

Never mind some people came from a long distance and expensive travel.

Galloism wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
Or what if we restricted the government through functions we have already used and are included in the government to restrict it.

Then you still have a really permissive lease. But now we’re talking lease terms, not rights.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
so in other words if the hotel wants to they should be able to deny anyone not heterosexual and white to stay at their hotel for a wedding and tell the couple who booked it sorry we didnt know these people where attending and we dont welcome them. They cannot stay here or attend the wedding.

You've not only ruined those attending experience but potentially the entire wedding. But tis their property and their rules.

Never mind some people came from a long distance and expensive travel.

You can add as much emotional seasoning as you want it’s still their property.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:It’s not like the foundational documents of the US government were designed to restrict it, or the restrictions of government was the very political culture for its founding.

San Lumen wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
You can add as much emotional seasoning as you want it’s still their property.

What do you propose is the solution in this scenario then? Only the people they like can attend the wedding?

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Galloism wrote:Then you still have a really permissive lease. But now we’re talking lease terms, not rights.

Well no, I’m talking rights, your talking lease terms.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Are you asking who created the legal protections for property or the reasons why the protections were made?

The former. Who is creating legal protections for property?

Apparently eminent domain doesn’t exist.

Eminent domain is like an internal business memo outlining recommended procedures.

Not an actual restriction; something that can be rescinded at any moment.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
What do you propose is the solution in this scenario then? Only the people they like can attend the wedding?

Yeah pretty much.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
Like if it’s what gets ya off, go ahead as long as you’re not looking to enforce it on someone else’s property.

But they are. They're enforcing it on US property.

Yusseria wrote:Then you completely misunderstand the purpose of debate, which of course is not surprising.

The purpose of debate is discussion of worthy matters, not pissing over how unfair it is that the world has left you behind.

Ah, don't worry. Businesses already discriminate based on political views.

Libertarians to the back of the bus, please.

The government.

Of course, if the government changed the law to give itself ownership over all businesses then you'd have a point.

It hasn't.

If the government decided to do literally anything it wanted with any business in the US, it could do it. It chooses not to, day after day, but it could do it.

So in what sense is having absolute power and the legal ability to exercise it over something the moment you decide to act not ownership?

San Lumen wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I imagine they’re still just as screwed as anyone else who got their reservation cancelled.

How is their reservation cancelled? Its NOT their reservation its the couple getting married reservation.

San Lumen wrote:Recently I have seen comments and heard several politicians say there ought to be a right to discriminate by privately owned business of which the rationale I dont understand

According to some the Civil Rights Act and anti discrimination laws should apply only to government owned business or essential services like a hotel, that it is the owners right to choose who they do business with or who they hire.

Where in the constitution is this alleged right?

No one should face discrimination simply because of what they look like or because they are LGBT. Everyone is equal under the law and deserves to be treated equally .

If you want to discriminate then open a private club though I dont think even a business like Costco would be able to get away with only allowing certain groups of people to shop there. If your open to the public you serve all or none at all.

What say you NSG? Should there be a right to discriminate?