It's not even a matter of the "far right" also. Where are all these far leftists trying to prevent people from driving, smoking and going on the internet?

I mean, other than the voters you started this thread defending, I don't see where that is coming from.

And I thought that you supported the ability of the majority to limit many of these rights, so this last page is a bit confusing.

No, I believe it to be a "right" and I put forth Amendment 9 as a defense to my opinion. I do not believe it to be a "privilege" and I showed where I strongly disagree with calling what I believe to be rights as privileges.

It could be argued that it is semantics, but saying something is a privilege to me feels like it is something government can take away at its whim (a rightful belief or not it is my belief with that word). Whereas, to me a right as long as you are abiding by the laws that have been made to protect others (arguably a public smoking ban, without argument traffic laws), they cannot be taken away for any reason by government.

then driving clearly IS a privilege. The number of rules, regulations and limitations you need to abide by in order to legally drive puts it in that category. Compare to that to, say, your right to freedom of religion, which has no such limitations and regulations

say what?

are you seriously trying to intimate that the only rights we have guaranteed to us are the ones actually spelled out in the constitution and bill of rights?

Employee, not owner. But yes, I do work as a firearms retailer.

Up in arms? No. Frequently very annoyed, especially since ATF has and does send people to prison and fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars for spelling mistakes and missed dates on Form 4473? Yes. Very annoyed.

Correct.

Because not doing so is an excellent way to end up full of holes, having the holes one normally possesses subjected to nightly stretching by the cock of someone I won't like very much, or fined into bankruptcy.

It isn't; both cases are bullshit. Unfortunately, it's bullshit that one must swallow if one wishes to have Massa's permission to operate a business: just like one must swallow a lot of bullshit in order to obtain Massa's permission to get married, to expand or modify one's home, to build a new home or structure, plough one's fields, hunt one's own game, fish one's own streams, or peaceably assemble to request redress of a grievance. However, since being forced to swallow a ration of bullshit is not on the same moral level as being actively shot at or immediately and physically attacked, no: I am not "up in arms." Violence is a factor in both such instances, but only when violence is being actively employed against a person or nation does that person or nation have the right to retaliate and defend themselves with force.

are we running into the natural law matter again in this thread?
if you imagine there is such a thing as natural law, it would give you something to appeal to in saying there are "rights" which pre-exist any given legal framework. what these are would of course be arbitrary outside a speech community (a group of folk who agreed amongst themselves based on social and likely historical reasons--which often are the same thing, with the former being operative and the latter the same but pushed into the past)....but no matter. you could perhaps imagine a natural "right" to smoke or a natural "right" to this or that.

if you don't buy the notion of natural law, then there's no basis for talking about "rights" except insofar as these are created within the existing legal framework, so by that framework.

i smoked for a while. now i don't (i think). i understood most smoking regulation bars etc. to be about worker health and so i didn't object to them. though i will say that the uk version was more consistent, which is that you can smoke in a pub (or could last i was there) but not within 50 feet or so of the bar because that's where the employees are more likely to congregate.

something i find very interesting with this thread is the widely varying views of what rights people have and what rights people don't. Several people here think that since the majority wills it, it must be done. How is it then that the majority of people in california voted down the gay marriage amendment, yet that shouldn't apply?

Ah, but there are limitations and regulations to freedom of speech, press, to bear arms.

I cannot go into a movie theater and yell FIRE and incite panic and possibly riotous behavior. I cannot slander/libel or legally copy someone else's works for profit. I cannot carry a handgun unless I have a CCW license and obey the laws. There are limitations on religion, also. I cannot have the 10 Commandments hung in a courthouse or in my office. I cannot have my child pray or talk about prayer in school. Yet they are rights none the less.

Pan I've forgoten exactly what your arguing in this thread, you have jumped all over the place. But for clarification, you can carry a handgun in Ohio without a CCW. It's called open carry, which is legal in Ohio.

If I want to be a practicing Jew, I don't need to be of a certain age, I don't need a clean praying record, I don't need to carry religion insurance, and there aren't law enforcement personnel whose job is to make sure I am following the laws of Judaism.

Try opening a house of worship, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu...it matters not. You still need permission, and if you practice too much free speech inside said house of worship, you lose the various tax exemptions and licensures which make the existence of your Temple, Church, Mosque, etc. possible in our current legal framework.

the restrictions aren't on your religion, it's on your tax status, which is not a Constitutional right. The government isn't saying "you can't say those things", they're saying "if you say those things, we're revoking your tax exemptions". Completely different things

What they're saying is;

"Certain speech is permissible within the context of religion. Certain speech is not. We will decide which is which, and if impermissible speech is spoken we will penalise the speaker (or their org.) by imposing penalties upon it/them which we will refrain from imposing upon those who speak only permissible speech."

Kiss the Gov't ass (or at least refrain from biting it too hard), and you're a Religion which gets left alone. Refuse to kiss aforementioned ass, or bite in ways it does not appreciate, and you're just another company or Corporation, no different from McDonalds. Which do you think will have an easier time staying open; a church which has to pay all the usual Corporate taxes (2nd highest in the world after Japan, BTW) because it speaks to specific political issues which the leaders of that faith community find relevant in a spiritual sense, or the Church which makes like a good lil' fiel'hand and keep'is mouth shut, thereby -avoiding- those taxes?

Correct, the Church which kisses the correct asses and pays no taxes will have a much easier time staying open than the one which refuses to kiss ass and pays taxes.

If you think any of this is accidental, you must not have been paying attention for the last decade or so. -Nothing- these jerkoffs do is accidental.

I'd stil llike pan to recognise that this proof he wanted has been presented, yet he picks and chooses what he responds to, and ignores those who have shown him proof.
Which has been answered by me twice now, this is the third time, still with pan turning a blind eye to the proof he requested, and going off on his emotional rants about 'driving is a right', which is just hilarious, hell even before I took drivers ed 17 years ago I knew the saying 'driving is a privilege not a right', I mean just look at the google results, http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cl...ght%27&spell=1

Again pan, here's the proof you requested, not that I expect a response, but I'll post it from time to time so you don't forget it was done.

But again, that's a different issue. Tax exemption is not a right granted by the Constitution. If the Government has decided it will give certain churches tax exemptions, why shouldn't it be able to dictate the parameters that qualify one for said exemption?

No freedom of religion has been infringed whatsoever

Actually, religious tax exemption is not a right, but a benefit. Personally, I would prefer that churches, priests and all that were taxed at the same rate as any non profit or any person who works for a non profit.

In any case, I have no problems with stating that for an organization to benefit from religious tax exemptions, it has to stick to religion, and not anything else. Otherwise, if religion can be just a side show, pretty much anyone can claim they are a church and demand that status. Oh, and churches can say quite a lot about who people should support, they just can't be partisan or overtly political about it. They can say "support pro life candidates," they just can't say "vote republican."

Irrelevant. What's at issue here is that the Federal Gov't is meddling in areas it oughtn't, as it hasn't the right, using financial blackmail to marginalise and destroy those whos speech or beliefs the Feds find unduly irritating or irreverent.

Because the use of such differences creates an economic distortion favoring certain outcomes designed for the maintainence of the State. The State exists to serve the People, not the other way around.

BS. When market distortions are weilded as a club to crush certain speech or religious belief while propping up others, the religious freedom of the group being distorted against has been infringed upon.

then your beef should be that the State gives churches tax exemptions in the first place, not how those exemptions are managed

My beef is primarily that the State -levies- involuntary taxes, but you're correct. Absent getting rid of those, the discriminatory use of exemptions has to go. Either don't tax anybody or tax everybody by the same rubric and according to the same rules; that's my solution.

so you're against tax exempt status for not-for-profit agencies?

This might shed some light on this issue:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...19/?cmpid=rss1

Pan was shown proof pages ago Baraka, all he needed to do was look up one name, or follow the links I have posted numerous times in this thread, had he looked up Heather Crowe, or went to these links and there's the proof, pan doesn't want proof though, then he can't rant and rave and huff and puff, and make accusations and make up his own 'facts'. So once more.
heathercrowecampaign
Heather Crowe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
heathercrowecampaign

Well, perhaps he wasn't satisfied with one case.

Here I've just posted data referring to a few years with a ban in place and numbers to the order of "per 1,000" amongst a population of one of the largest metropolises in North America.

Thank you for the info. I think you'd see those results from the decrease in smokers alone though but those are good numbers. I just dont believe secondhand smoke is the SOLE cause of disease in a person. Can it contribute to a medical problem? Yes, but cause, no, I don't believe that in a bar/restaurant atmosphere. Now, if you spouse or someone you are around every day with, in small confined spaces with such as cars, bedrooms, etc. I can see the argument and it may truly affect someone's health, especially children.

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

First, "I don't set out to personally attack pan"... sound familiar?

Second, for the most part you are on my ignore list and I really pay no attention to you except when you post things like this.

Pan, for things such as angina and heart attacks, I'm sure it's smokers who are most effected. However, when it comes to things such as bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma, you might be surprised at the effect secondhand smoke has in these.

For example, are you aware of how asthma attacks can be triggered? Though I'm sure it would take longer exposures to secondhand smoke to contract something like bronchitis and pneumonia. Also consider how secondhand smoke is a serious contributing factor that only makes things worse. Very few things can be considered a sole cause of disease.

I can agree with this to a degree. But when you look at history (the 50's, 60's and 70's) people weren't saying much at all about secondhand smoke. Some could argue that it was there just no studies done... for kids I honestly believe it may even cause asthma and chronic bronchial problems. But in a ventilated bar setting... unless everyone is smoking and you are working there every single day for 10+ hours... I don't see it as a serious issue. There are far worse things such as fried foods, high red meat consumption, no exercise, etc. in life than that secondhand smoke.

As for the repeal of the law, there hasn't been much said or done so perhaps, it has died. Which would be great. Hopefully with the political apathy in the state right now the politicians would see it as political suicide to try to overturn the people's vote through legislation.

What does this mean? Are the bars in your area more ventilated than the rest of the country? Bars have no more or less ventilation than any other establishment that cooks food. If you happen to patron a bar that doesn't serve food then the ventilation isn't any different than any other building.

First, that was a personal attack? I figured it was an observation on your posting habits here, ask for something, get shown it, ignore it, rant, rave, huff, puff, move on but hey, whatever lets you play the victim again, as you always do. If it's personal pan, report it, there's a fancy button on the forum for that, but then that wouldn't allow you to play the victim and make it look like poor little pan is always being picked on by big mean Jay, oh poor pan.

Second, interesting you asked for proof, I posted it, yet no response about it from you. Rather you tell me I'm on your ignore list for the most part(yay me), and totally ignore anything else in my post, quite typical of you really, ignore proof to play the victim.
I'll post this again, maybe you'll actually read it, rather than say I'm attacking you, I mean you've asked for proof, said you don't believe it can cause it, yet here it is, the proof you wanted yet ignore, surely pan you can at least respond to this, I mean, you asked for it, what 2 pages ago?
Care to respond pan, or are we going to keep going the usual way of things?

As I stated in the part you didn't quote... such as a bedroom or a car. Your home and especially those 2 areas usually do not have the ventilation as a public place. Since this is about bars and restaurants I didn't think I really needed to elaborate like this. And here in Canton YES, smoking areas were more ventilated than non smoking, by law.

There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke.
The adverse impact of second hand smoke cant be rationalized away with claims of marginally "better ventilation."

That was my thinking, but he did ask for one case where a non smoker died from lung cancer due to working i na bar that allowed smoking.
I mean, this quote pretty much provesd what he asked for, yet still denial on pans part.
I mean, that seems to be the proof asked for, he wanted one case, I showed him one case, you showed him many more examples, should be enough proof between the two posts lol.