Arkansas woman to be banned from Walmart for racist remarks - what?

[Running Gator]

10 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

Exactly, the Bill of Rights empowers individuals, and those rights extend to every corner of this nation.  That is precisely why the founders guaranteed those rights.  The government has already infringed on the rights of public establishments, repeatedly.  Restaurants and bars can no longer allow people to smoke in them, not by choice, but by law.  Private clubs cannot restrict membership requirements, not by choice, but by law.  Private clubs cannot restrict leadership positions, not by choice, by law.  And when someone in your state decides to push their right to curse in a restaurant if they want to, you will find that this too will be allowed by law.

Removing someone from a business has guidelines by law as well, ladykay posted them.  None of them restrict speech other than if you are harassing employees or other customers.  A few other exceptions would be hate speech or anything that could be construed as threatening which would get you labeled as a terrorist, and under the Patriot Act they have all sorts of latitude.

The Bill of Rights do not empower individuals, they limit the power of the government.   

[MorningGlory]

23 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Why yes, the freedom of speech is found in the bill of rights.  And that is what makes it different than laws like anti-discrimination laws. 

You see, the Bill of Rights is all about limiting the power of the government, not of the individual.  

This is why SCOTUS can enforce discrimination laws on individuals, but not freedom of speech.  

The law of the land is that nobody can discriminate and that the government cannot infringe on your free speech.   To force the free speech part onto individuals would actually be in direct contrast to the law of the land.

The very term 'Rights' refers to citizens; limiting the power of government is not 'Rights' by any definition.

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

The very term 'Rights' refers to citizens; limiting the power of government is not 'Rights' by any definition.

The Bills of Rights limits the power to the government to take away our rights. 

Read them, they all deal specifically with what the government cannot do.  They do not list what we can do, they list what the government cannot do.  The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to free speech, it keeps the government from taking it away. 

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

The Bills of Rights limits the power to the government to take away our rights. 

Read them, they all deal specifically with what the government cannot do.  They do not list what we can do, they list what the government cannot do.  The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to free speech, it keeps the government from taking it away. 

You're arguing with yourself.....Looks like 'rights' to me. 

The Bill of Rights – Full Text

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Running Gator]

38 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

You're arguing with yourself.....Looks like 'rights' to me. 

The Bill of Rights – Full Text

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No, I am arguing with you, that is why you keep on posting in response to me. 

And yes, they are rights.  They are rights the government cannot take away from us, they are not rights given to us by the government.  We do not have free speech because of the 1st Amendment, we have it because it is an inalienable right and the Bill of Rights tells the government they cannot take it away from us. 

The Bill of Rights does not give us those rights, they lay out the rights we have by birth and then tells the government they cannot take them away from us.   The Bill of Rights is about limiting the government, not empowering the people with the rights we already have.  If you cannot understand the most basic tenet of our constitution, I really cannot help you. 

[wingnut-]

9 hours ago, Running Gator said:

The Bill of Rights do not empower individuals, they limit the power of the government.   

 

This is an ironic statement considering you pretty much make a habit out of speaking poorly of your President.  If you were living in China or Cuba, you would be imprisoned at the very least for speaking out against leadership.  In this country, it is your right to do so, that is empowerment.  If you actually believe what you said above, I would say you take your rights for granted.

God bless

[Running Gator]

11 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

This is an ironic statement considering you pretty much make a habit out of speaking poorly of your President.  If you were living in China or Cuba, you would be imprisoned at the very least for speaking out against leadership.  In this country, it is your right to do so, that is empowerment.  If you actually believe what you said above, I would say you take your rights for granted.

God bless

Not ironic in the least.  Our right to free speech does not come from the government, it is ours to start with.  What we have that China or Cuba is missing is the Bill of Rights which limit the government's ability to take that free speech away.   

So, I can speak poorly of our president not because the Bill of Rights gives me the freedom to do so, but because the Bill of Rights keeps the government from stopping me.

I take nothing for granted, I spent 20 years of my life defending those rights in the Marines and will do so till the day I die.  The lady in the OP has every right to say what she said, I will defend her right to so do, but WalMart also has every right to tell her to do it outside of their stores, and I will defend that right as well.

[MorningGlory]

3 hours ago, Running Gator said:

No, I am arguing with you, that is why you keep on posting in response to me. 

And yes, they are rights.  They are rights the government cannot take away from us, they are not rights given to us by the government.  We do not have free speech because of the 1st Amendment, we have it because it is an inalienable right and the Bill of Rights tells the government they cannot take it away from us. 

The Bill of Rights does not give us those rights, they lay out the rights we have by birth and then tells the government they cannot take them away from us.   The Bill of Rights is about limiting the government, not empowering the people with the rights we already have.  If you cannot understand the most basic tenet of our constitution, I really cannot help you. 

If you didn't argue that Thursday was Sunday I would know you were an imposter.  If I understand your very long  post, you are saying that the Bill of Rights confirms our rights that we are born with and states that the government cannot take them away.  Okay, I can agree with that.  Better hoist a flag; it doesn't happen very often.

[wingnut-]

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

Not ironic in the least.  Our right to free speech does not come from the government, it is ours to start with.  What we have that China or Cuba is missing is the Bill of Rights which limit the government's ability to take that free speech away.   

So, I can speak poorly of our president not because the Bill of Rights gives me the freedom to do so, but because the Bill of Rights keeps the government from stopping me.

I take nothing for granted, I spent 20 years of my life defending those rights in the Marines and will do so till the day I die.  The lady in the OP has every right to say what she said, I will defend her right to so do, but WalMart also has every right to tell her to do it outside of their stores, and I will defend that right as well.

 

Considering the men who wrote the Bill of Rights were representatives of the government, the government did assure you those rights, and that no future government could take them away.  

[MorningGlory]

3 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Considering the men who wrote the Bill of Rights were representatives of the government, the government did assure you those rights, and that no future government could take them away.  

Exactly.