Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for comprehending and conceding the point there is a difference between defensive force and initiated aggression (offensive force).OK, lets analyze this
Defensive v. Offensive "force"
In the context of the homosexual couple requesting a wedding cake from the Christian baker opposed to homosexual marriage, I would argue the initiation of force is coming from the Christian baker. I believe this to be the case because 1. they took the job fully aware of the responsibilities of the position, including baking cakes for homosexual couples, in accordance with federal law, & 2. the civil rights act of 1964 guarantees American citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin equal protection from discrimination under the law. Discrimination is treatment or consideration of a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than individual merit. Therefore, the defensive position to take is opposition to said discrimination.
I've argued that business owners don't have the right to discriminate against people based on the reasons outlined by the CRA of 1964, it defines discrimination very clearly
The gov. owns the land, every inch of America, we just rent it
If the government owns all the land and can direct everyone's actions with or without consent of those individuals aren't they initiating force against everyone in some way?
How can an institution born from the initiation of force (the USA) serve as an arbiter of anything in a fair and just way?
Didn't the civil rights act REMOVE the right of control of private property and place it in the hands of others ?
Didn't it remove the right of black people to control their property and their bodies too?
How does the removal of a right from a person, black or white, by an organization founded in initiated aggression serve anybody?