Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 14:41:11 GMT -6
You still didn't answer the question. As am example : I have an acquaintance who does DJ work on the weekends to earn extra money. She absolutely refuses to work homosexual functions and parties, not because of a religious objection but because after doing a few she found the work environment far too lewd and often times downright gross. Should the law force her to work those events ?
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 27, 2017 15:05:25 GMT -6
What does it mean to be open to the public? I open my house to guests on my terms and reserve the right to make any of them leave or not be allowed in. How is this different than a business that does the same? Why does the business lose freedom of association where I get to keep it? So you've just completely given up on defining what a business even is? If you claim that operating a business that is open to the public means forgoing freedom of association, but you can't define operating a business OR being open to the public how do you expect anyone to understand their rights? I don't see much problem with people being confused about when they are in business or when they are engaged in social activity or other noncommercial activity. Nor do I think "opening your house" for your dinner guests is the same as advertising food and drink for sale to the public. I doubt anyone is confused about when they are going to a restaurant in ordinary course of business. I don't think government has as much interest in regulating your private non economic activity in your home. Operating a business enterprise, whether from your home or not is different than entertaining guests. Whether people are confused about it isn't the issue. You're saying that by going into business that is open to the public you give up your right to association with whomever you choose. I'm trying to clarify what you mean. You said you had no idea if the guy giving away food qualifies as a business. I don't think you get to say both that you have no idea what constitutes a business and that nobody is confused about whether they are in business. What makes my non economic activity private in my home? What makes it non economic? I know you hate to take solid positions but could you please at minimum define the terms you use? That's literally all I've been asking for for pages of this conversation. Define what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 27, 2017 17:21:49 GMT -6
I don't see much problem with people being confused about when they are in business or when they are engaged in social activity or other noncommercial activity. Nor do I think "opening your house" for your dinner guests is the same as advertising food and drink for sale to the public. I doubt anyone is confused about when they are going to a restaurant in ordinary course of business. I don't think government has as much interest in regulating your private non economic activity in your home. Operating a business enterprise, whether from your home or not is different than entertaining guests. Whether people are confused about it isn't the issue. You're saying that by going into business that is open to the public you give up your right to association with whomever you choose. I'm trying to clarify what you mean. You said you had no idea if the guy giving away food qualifies as a business. I don't think you get to say both that you have no idea what constitutes a business and that nobody is confused about whether they are in business. What makes my non economic activity private in my home? What makes it non economic? I know you hate to take solid positions but could you please at minimum define the terms you use? That's literally all I've been asking for for pages of this conversation. Define what you're talking about. I don't think we see very much of the example you are so worried about. A large scale distribution of food, whether it is a business or not, likely would run into some regulations, I just know what regulations apply here. Free association is not an absolute right. Laws limit freedom. You make it sound as if you give up ALL rights. The limits are limited and recognize the community standards. Perhaps, you can't associate with you biker buddies if they want to sit on your lawn at night in the neighborhood and make a lot of noise, or if you want to form a gun club and take target practice in your back yard, or if you want to dance naked with your girl friend in your living room with the blinds open. In all those cases your free association is limited. Your community makes law which will impact you if you choose to live there. So. Yes, if you go into business, or choose to live in the city limits, or do any number of other things that makes you subject to law which MIGHT limit your free association. In a relatively small way. This is important so we can have communities. The law balances rights of people. In business and in private life there is a trade off of absolute freedom by an individual versus the rights of others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 17:47:27 GMT -6
Whether people are confused about it isn't the issue. You're saying that by going into business that is open to the public you give up your right to association with whomever you choose. I'm trying to clarify what you mean. You said you had no idea if the guy giving away food qualifies as a business. I don't think you get to say both that you have no idea what constitutes a business and that nobody is confused about whether they are in business. What makes my non economic activity private in my home? What makes it non economic? I know you hate to take solid positions but could you please at minimum define the terms you use? That's literally all I've been asking for for pages of this conversation. Define what you're talking about. I don't think we see very much of the example you are so worried about. A large scale distribution of food, whether it is a business or not, likely would run into some regulations, I just know what regulations apply here. Free association is not an absolute right. Laws limit freedom. You make it sound as if you give up ALL rights. The limits are limited and recognize the community standards. Perhaps, you can't associate with you biker buddies if they want to sit on your lawn at night in the neighborhood and make a lot of noise, or if you want to form a gun club and take target practice in your back yard, or if you want to dance naked with your girl friend in your living room with the blinds open. In all those cases your free association is limited. Your community makes law which will impact you if you choose to live there. So. Yes, if you go into business, or choose to live in the city limits, or do any number of other things that makes you subject to law which MIGHT limit your free association. In a relatively small way. This is important so we can have communities. The law balances rights of people. In business and in private life there is a trade off of absolute freedom by an individual versus the rights of others. Congratulations, you completely changed the subject once again. We aren't discussing who you are legally allowed to associate with, but whom you are forced by law to associate with. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 27, 2017 19:18:20 GMT -6
I don't think we see very much of the example you are so worried about. A large scale distribution of food, whether it is a business or not, likely would run into some regulations, I just know what regulations apply here. Free association is not an absolute right. Laws limit freedom. You make it sound as if you give up ALL rights. The limits are limited and recognize the community standards. Perhaps, you can't associate with you biker buddies if they want to sit on your lawn at night in the neighborhood and make a lot of noise, or if you want to form a gun club and take target practice in your back yard, or if you want to dance naked with your girl friend in your living room with the blinds open. In all those cases your free association is limited. Your community makes law which will impact you if you choose to live there. So. Yes, if you go into business, or choose to live in the city limits, or do any number of other things that makes you subject to law which MIGHT limit your free association. In a relatively small way. This is important so we can have communities. The law balances rights of people. In business and in private life there is a trade off of absolute freedom by an individual versus the rights of others. Congratulations, you completely changed the subject once again. We aren't discussing who you are legally allowed to associate with, but whom you are forced by law to associate with. That is BS, the argument I present was quite general in nature, and applies to that aspect of free association All within a quite limited range of situations. Your argument would imply you could refuse to associate and serve people on the basis of race, religion, etc. In Bloomington and many other places local law said LBGTQ was such a classification. If you disagree with the law, fine, but the state has the power to make that law. Note it applies in business, and with exceptions defined by statute. This does limit your rights, but in a quite reasonable way. You don't have to invite any of those LGBTQ folks to dinner. Just serve them in your restaurant when they are law abiding members of the public. You are perfectly free to limit those rowdy bikers who interfere with your business by their illegal or inappropriate behavior, or rowdy LGBTQ folks for that matter...because they are rowdy and disturb your business, not because they are LGBTQ. What the state law did was set up not just an exception that could be a bogus religious excuse, but potentially to allow that excuse to invalidate what the city wanted to do about LGBTQ, but with language so broad it was an excuse potentially for almost any law to be broken. It was too broad. . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 4:01:24 GMT -6
Congratulations, you completely changed the subject once again. We aren't discussing who you are legally allowed to associate with, but whom you are forced by law to associate with. That is BS, the argument I present was quite general in nature, and applies to that aspect of free association All within a quite limited range of situations. Your argument would imply you could refuse to associate and serve people on the basis of race, religion, etc. In Bloomington and many other places local law said LBGTQ was such a classification. If you disagree with the law, fine, but the state has the power to make that law. Note it applies in business, and with exceptions defined by statute. This does limit your rights, but in a quite reasonable way. You don't have to invite any of those LGBTQ folks to dinner. Just serve them in your restaurant when they are law abiding members of the public. You are perfectly free to limit those rowdy bikers who interfere with your business by their illegal or inappropriate behavior, or rowdy LGBTQ folks for that matter...because they are rowdy and disturb your business, not because they are LGBTQ. What the state law did was set up not just an exception that could be a bogus religious excuse, but potentially to allow that excuse to invalidate what the city wanted to do about LGBTQ, but with language so broad it was an excuse potentially for almost any law to be broken. It was too broad. . Nice job mischaracterizing my post. Trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 28, 2017 5:16:12 GMT -6
We were talking about free association and legal limits on it. You can't always choose completely freely.
I don't see anything I said off topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 28, 2017 6:54:01 GMT -6
00, you wrote "When a business opens up to the public they give up some rights(not all rights) to complete and absolute 'free association.'" Why does this apply to business differently? And what does it mean to open to the public? Why won't you define the basic terms? What distinguishes businesses from everyone else? What constitutes opening to the public?  |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 28, 2017 10:59:25 GMT -6
What's your position anyway?
These questions seem pretty obvious to me. No need to get technical.
Give a borderline case where it matters. Something real not the backyard food give away at your place.
Where's the problem you see?
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 28, 2017 11:12:46 GMT -6
What's your position anyway? These questions seem pretty obvious to me. No need to get technical. Give a borderline case where it matters. Something real not the backyard food give away at your place. Where's the problem you see? I've stated my position: "In a free society you would be allowed to decide who you will and will not interact with." I think the reason you won't define your terms is that your terms don't really matter. You say that by opening a "business" to "the public" you forfeit freedom of association. I think you think the coercion you advocate is more palatable if it's presented as a trade-off. If it's framed as "you can have freedom of association or operate a business" then by operating a business you can say they selected their choice and waived freedom of association. But the bottom line is in your paradigm nobody should be free from interpersonal coercion. Everyone should be subject to your whims as you try to shape society as you see fit. You can't identify what actions cause the trade-off, because then enterprising freedom-lovers would figure out workarounds. If you never take a position then you're always free to come up with a new justification for why whatever actions they took result in a new trade-off. Care to define your terms now? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 28, 2017 20:00:41 GMT -6
The question is more how free can society be?
There is no totally free lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 29, 2017 7:05:34 GMT -6
The question is more how free can society be? There is no totally free lunch. Should I take this as acknowledgment that "opening a business to the public" has nothing to do with whether people should be free to associate with whomever they'd like? Save |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 30, 2017 6:48:55 GMT -6
No, but you could take it to mean that absolute freedom is not reality. Or, that society is not about absolute freedom. It's about law to guarantee a reasonable amount of order which does limit freedom.
Or, you could take it that you can continue to bar those LGBTQ folks from your home but that if you go into business whether you can completely be able to avoid the association may depend on the law. Without which legal system orderly commercial transactions are very difficult if at all possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 30, 2017 10:12:46 GMT -6
No, but you could take it to mean that absolute freedom is not reality. Or, that society is not about absolute freedom. It's about law to guarantee a reasonable amount of order which does limit freedom. Or, you could take it that you can continue to bar those LGBTQ folks from your home but that if you go into business whether you can completely be able to avoid the association may depend on the law. Without which legal system orderly commercial transactions are very difficult if at all possible. I don't bar LGBTQ folks from my home. But why would you allow me to bar them from my home but not my business? Why is business different? SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 30, 2017 14:14:47 GMT -6
Why would they be the same is the better question.
your home is surely private and you are making nothing like an implicit invitation for people to come there and engage in commerce of mutual benefit. The community has much less interest in what you do in private non commercial use of property.
Most business is quite different and the community has much greater interest in creating standards.
|
|
