Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
You haven't had a customer since you opened. Your mortgage is Past Due. The nice sheriff will escort you off the property.
Americans of Latino descent have higher rates of diabetes and obesity than Americans of Northern European descent.
Therefore, a law against the behavior of buying junk food could be enacted, making illegal for Hispanics to buy junk food.
Will the Supreme Court uphold such law?
I'd rather have homosexuals in jail than out on the streets molesting young children.
That's rather funny, you know.
I haven't heard of any molestations on the street. In fact, over the past year or so, I've heard most reports of molestation indicating that they happen for more often elsewhere.
No convicted child molester should ever be let out of prison, straight or homo.
How about booking the LP National Covention? That would bring in hundreds of dollars.
It won't be, bet the farm. But I'll humor you for the sake of discussion and pretend it succeeds.
Is that morally wrong?
It would be repugnant, but none of my business because you wouldn't be violating the rights of others. I wouldn't associate with you either, because I would find you of low character. I would find it personally morally wrong, but it is not my place to enforce my morals with force, but you probably already knew that. I suspect that's why you asked the question, to hear one of us say it. So there you have it.
My restaurant is on my property, and I'm not hurting anyone, right? How could anyone shut me down?
By not eating there. You'll go out of business with a quickness. I'd bet you wouldn't have a single customer, ever. And government wouldn't need to do a thing to close you down. Imagine that, something succeeding or failing on its own merits.
Because the actions necessary to criminalize it are more evil. It would make people afraid to say anything potentially controversial for fear of being thrown in prison. A decent portion of the posts on FR regarding our favorite religion of peace would qualify as racism in the minds of some.
Because the actions necessary to criminalize it are more evil. It would make people afraid to say anything potentially controversial for fear of being thrown in prison. A decent portion of the posts on FR regarding our favorite religion of peace would qualify as racism in the minds of some.
Yes, inasmuch as smoking is a voluntary act.
Should smoking be illegal by this criteria?
No, because smoking, unlike homosexuality, is not intrinsically evil since, when used in small quantities, it doesn't represent a danger to one's health. Smoking, to the extent that it represents a clear danger to a specific individual's health, however, would be intrinsically evil.
Therefore, a tax on cigarettes which works to discourage chain-smoking is prudent. Unfortunately, such a tax would penalize the occasional user, but not significantly. Additionally, smoking is not essential to one's health. Such a tax then promotes the common good, more so than no tax would.
Answer the question...would you allow this or not?
The point...there are certain types of behaviors that do not explicitly hurt people, but that lower public morality that can and should be banned.
My further point: there is no "right" to gay sex. The SCOTUS should not "declare one". If the democratic will of the people of Texas is the outlawing of gay sex, then fine. If not, then fine. I'd be out there campaigning to keep the law, but if the referendum calling for its repeal passed, I'd have nothing to say.
As a matter of principle, yes. However, your scenario is like asking: if pigs could fly would you ride one - not going to happen.
Frankly, quite a few FR posts on the subject of Arabs are racist by any reasonable definition of that word.
However, it would indeed be evil for anyone (except JimRob and his delegated agents) to remove them or sanction their authors.
Right. Society, through the democratic process, evaluates behaviors and then decides if they advance the public good. Smoking is a nuisance, but banning it is worse so you tolerate it on a prudential basis. You could say that homosexuality is bad for society, but curtailing it is worse, so leave it alone. I would disagree. We put it to a vote. One side wins. Fair enough.
But don't tell me you have a "right" to smoke or a "right" to gay sex. You don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.