Atheist files complaint over restaurant's Sunday promotion

[Curious George]

I think, rather, that the reason we are guaranteed state recognition of our civil rights is because we are citizens.

That guarantee can be taken away.

This statement is wrong. Otherwise you just professed that citizens of every other country have the same civil rights to vote in United States elections but those rights are just not recognized by our government.

 

[Willamena]

This statement is wrong. Otherwise you just professed that citizens of every other country have the same civil rights to vote in United States elections but those rights are just not recognized by our government.

What does it mean to you to be a citizen?

They do have the same right, in their respective countries. Those rights are just not recognized by all their governments.

 

[Curious George]

No, no. If my Civil rights are the same regardless of my citizenship then I should have the same rights. In this case, I am using my right to vote in the United States federal election. But now that we are on the topic. According to your concept imprisonment regardless of my crime is a breach to my civil rights. Your statements are invalid, because of the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

 

[Nakosis]

I have an idea. how about when the case is settled we figure out how. If a judge finds in favor of the defendant I will gladly admit I was wrong. If a judge finds in favor of the plaintiff will you too admit you were wrong?

A Judge is a person like anyone with biases. They provide an opinion based on their knowledge of the law.

Any judge doesn't necessarily have the final say. It may not even go to court. Perhaps they'll reach some agreement.

I don't think anyone is obligated to agree with a judge's decision though they'll still have to deal with the legal enforcement.

 

[Curious George]

A Judge is a person like anyone with biases. They provide an opinion based on their knowledge of the law.

Any judge doesn't necessarily have the final say. It may not even go to court. Perhaps they'll reach some agreement.

I don't think anyone is obligated to agree with a judge's decision though they'll still have to deal with the legal enforcement.

and so too can we say about the writers of the law. No one is obligated to agree with their decision but whether we like it or not that is the law. The law is what gives us our definitions, if we don't like the definitions we can change the law convincing congress to change it. I suppose the original question is Should....be illegal. However, the question at hand that we were debating was is it illegal. If a judge rules that it is then that quite simply settles the matter, save appeals. Once the appeals are done, however, the matter is settled. If the courts find against the defendant then the practice, in this instance, is illegal.

Certainly, we haven't answered the original question but discussion on whether or not the instance is or is not legal has been determined.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe that people are born with the ability to shape their world.

I think the point is civil rights only exist by agreement. As long as people/we as a group agree to enforce them.

Anyone can take away your rights. Our civil laws only provides a system of recourse.

Even then there is no guarantee of justice. The US Constitution is valid only as long as people agree to enforce it. Without that agreement, it, your rights, are not worth anymore then the paper it is written on.

Your rights are given by the group. Your rights can be taken away by the group. A system "of government" is only good as long as people agree to abide by it and enforce it.

I think the use of unalienable rights in the DOI is a bit of rhetoric.

 

[Nakosis]

and so too can we say about the writers of the law. No one is obligated to agree with their decision but whether we like it or not that is the law. The law is what gives us our definitions, if we don't like the definitions we can change the law convincing congress to change it. I suppose the original question is Should....be illegal. However, the question at hand that we were debating was is it illegal. If a judge rules that it is then that quite simply settles the matter, save appeals. Once the appeals are done, however, the matter is settled. If the courts find against the defendant then the practice, in this instance, is illegal.

Certainly, we haven't answered the original question but discussion on whether or not the instance is or is not legal has been determined.

Fair enough, it'll be illegal whether one agrees or not with the restaurant owner's right to offer discounts to people with church bulletins.
Until such time it is otherwise declared legal.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wordplay aside, what protected class is being harmed in your opinion?

Is that a rhetorical question? The unequal service the restaurant offers is based on religion, i.e. whether a person goes to church, mosque, or no place of worship at all. It's certainly not based on profession, age, or birthday status. It's not based on the size, shape, or color of the bulletin in a person's possession, is it? It's based on religion.

 

[Willamena]

No, no. If my Civil rights are the same regardless of my citizenship then I should have the same rights. In this case, I am using my right to vote in the United States federal election. But now that we are on the topic. According to your concept imprisonment regardless of my crime is a breach to my civil rights. Your statements are invalid, because of the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

Whether or not I believe in inalienable rights, or what shape those rights should take, shouldn't be pertinent to the discussion.

Due process doesn't guarantee you a right not to be imprisoned if you broke a law. It says that the government won't take away your liberty without due process.

The inalienability of rights doesn't equate to the inalienability of those guarantees outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I think the point is civil rights only exist by agreement. As long as people/we as a group agree to enforce them.

Anyone can take away your rights. Our civil laws only provides a system of recourse.

I understand. Alternatively, I look at it in terms of those acknowledgements/guarantees. The guarantee of rights exists by agreement. The guarantee of rights can be taken away.

But that's neither here nor there. It's a small semantic difference.

Even then there is no guarantee of justice. The US Constitution is valid only as long as people agree to enforce it. Without that agreement, it, your rights, are not worth anymore then the paper it is written on.

Your rights are given by the group. Your rights can be taken away by the group. A system "of government" is only good as long as people agree to abide by it and enforce it.

I think the use of unalienable rights in the DOI is a bit of rhetoric.

That's a bigger semantic difference--the popular belief that your rights can be taken away is a sad statement on the state (brainwashing) of the world.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Meaningful" would be the way that Jay means "meaningful" to be. It would have nothing to do with the law's meaning of "meaningful."

Ergo, it has nothing to do with the legal question. Which was my point.

 

[Willamena]

Ergo, it has nothing to do with the legal question. Which was my point.

Which makes Jay's a meaningful one.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Which makes Jay's a meaningful one.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. Plain English, please.

 

[Nakosis]

That's a bigger semantic difference--the popular belief that your rights can be taken away is a sad statement on the state (brainwashing) of the world.

Sad maybe but I see it as practical reality. Anyone can decide to take your life, liberty, or property.

Perhaps the only unalienable rights is to your own thoughts as long as you exist.

I suppose they can make it illegal for restaurants to offer this kind of discount. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just makes it illegal.

On the other hand they can make it legal. Still nothing saying it is right or wrong, just means there's no legal recourse for someone feeling offended by it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The unequal service the restaurant offers is based on religion, ...

Good grief!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Good grief!

That is not an argument.

 

[Curious George]

Whether or not I believe in inalienable rights, or what shape those rights should take, shouldn't be pertinent to the discussion.

Due process doesn't guarantee you a right not to be imprisoned if you broke a law. It says that the government won't take away your liberty without due process.

ahh but you suggested that civil rights which would include ones freedom to be a civil right that is recognized by the fact one is a citizen.

I get it you have a different concept of civil rights most civil rights activists, attorneys, judges, congressmen, congresswomen, professors of law, political scientists and me. I believe that human rights are inalienable, meaning to take away these rights is wrong, I believe that taking away civil rights is not wrong if there is just cause. And your view about civil rights does play into this debate because if we cannot agree on terms then it is pointless to discuss the issue. We will just keep butting heads because of semantics.

 

[Willamena]

ahh but you suggested that civil rights which would include ones freedom to be a civil right that is recognized by the fact one is a citizen.

I get it you have a different concept of civil rights most civil rights activists, attorneys, judges, congressmen, congresswomen, professors of law, political scientists and me. I believe that human rights are inalienable, meaning to take away these rights is wrong, I believe that taking away civil rights is not wrong if there is just cause. And your view about civil rights does play into this debate because if we cannot agree on terms then it is pointless to discuss the issue. We will just keep butting heads because of semantics.

While I'm a huge fan of semantics, and 80% of my arguments in this thread have been in regard to that, if you take the stance that I am the one who is "different" you are discriminating against me. The prejudice (pre-judgement) in that statement stalls any chance of debate.

I don't understand your first sentence--can you rephrase it?

 

[Curious George]

While I'm a huge fan of semantics, and 80% of my arguments in this thread have been in regard to that, if you take the stance that I am the one who is "different" you are discriminating against me. The prejudice (pre-judgement) in that statement stalls any chance of debate.

No, prejudice would be if I pre-judged your beliefs, I have heard them.

I don't understand your first sentence--can you rephrase it?

simple you have stated that being a citizen guarantees that the government will recognize our civil rights which in your view are given to us as a birthright independent of citizenship. Now, of our civil rights the concept of liberty is certainly one. If one commits a crime however one can be imprisoned that is to say that the due process of the law comes into affect, this you have also suggested is a civil right, forgetting that in order to preempt citizenship civil rights must have existed before and independent of government. For you suggest that governments don't give us our civil rights; rather, governments recognize our civil rights. Thus, due process cannot be a civil right because it requires government and cannot exist independent of government. But back to liberty. assuming liberty could exist independent of government, one is still a citizen when they go to jail. Thus your claim that citizenship guarantees government will recognize Civil Rights goes out the window.

 

[Willamena]

simple you have stated that being a citizen guarantees that the government will recognize our civil rights which in your view are given to us as a birthright independent of citizenship. Now, of our civil rights the concept of liberty is certainly one. If one commits a crime however one can be imprisoned that is to say that the due process of the law comes into affect, this you have also suggested is a civil right, forgetting that in order to preempt citizenship civil rights must have existed before and independent of government. For you suggest that governments don't give us our civil rights; rather, governments recognize our civil rights. Thus, due process cannot be a civil right because it requires government and cannot exist independent of government. But back to liberty. assuming liberty could exist independent of government, one is still a citizen when they go to jail. Thus your claim that citizenship guarantees government will recognize Civil Rights goes out the window.

No, "birthright" is a different thing than "inalienable." A birthright is given. "Inalienable" is something that cannot be given or taken away--it's inherent of who we are.

"Liberty" is not a right. As I said earlier, due process is not the right to life, the right to liberty, or the right to property.

If one commits a crime, the government is obliged to imprison them. The 14th Amendment is about due process: it says that when you are arrested you have the right to an attorney and a day in court. It guarantees that the government will not take away "life, liberty or property" without due process. Regardless that you are imprisoned, your civil right of "having a right to a lawyer, and if you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you" is not lost. You still have it, even in jail.

Its "civil" face is in the protection of "you" by knowledgable representation within the system. Your right to be protected within the system is inalienable. Each of the civil rights reduces to something inalienable, as do the human rights. This doesn't mean they cannot be waived (voluntarily overlooked) or surrendered (sacrified to a greater cause), but even if you submit to the system they are there for you. They haven't really gone anywhere, and you can reassert them at any time.

 

[Curious George]

No, "birthright" is a different thing than "inalienable." A birthright is given. "Inalienable" is something that cannot be given or taken away--it's inherent of who we are.

"Liberty" is not a right. As I said earlier, due process is not the right to life, the right to liberty, or the right to property.

My point here is that due process is not independent of the law and therefore cannot be counted as something that one's right without a government. Consequently, that leaves us with liberty which if we pursue is also contradictory to your claim that we have civil rights and citizenship guarantees that the government will recognize said civil rights.

But no matter how you abstract your concept of civil rights I am sure that I can show you how they are either contradictory or not civil but human rights. What you claim here demonstrates a false concept of civil rights as understood by the majority of those whom have studied and devoted most of their lives to the concept. While I realize that it is theoretically possible that all of these people are wrong and you are indeed right, I should note: If everyone who has invested so much time and thought to civil rights disagrees with your definition, then perhaps you should reevaluate your definition to make sure you are certain you are indeed correct.