I disagree. I’m fresh shaven and my hair is combed. Looking good while doing this isn’t my issue. 
But if your neighbor complains about you not cutting your grass, and the city orders you to, it shows that one property owner’s right to live in a well manicured neighborhood is greater than your right to raise ticks.
But if the city doesn’t? What if the city orders it today. But, 2 years (perhaps even less) wouldn’t. I’d say these things aren’t evidence of which fancies are superior. I’d say they’re more like how is in charge at the present moment.
What if Bernie Sanders types swept to power from local to federal in the very near future, only to have the Paul Ryan types do the same a few years later? Neither opinion is right or wrong so much as it “is this fancy being forced upon us at the present?”
Welcome to the American voter.
Why is this so hard for you? No because you do not have the right to infringe on other peoples rights. And eminent domain is not an infringement. it is an acknowledgment that the property was yours and they cannot take it from you no matter how important it is. They can only buy it from you. And that can only be forced if it is for the greater good.
No, you don’t always have the right to exercise your right if it infringes on someone else’s right. The right to life supersedes religious rights.
You don’t see the incongruity in your post?
Yes but the concept that rightshave a legal order. Even remotely thinking that way means you don’t know what rights are. You seem to be Mistaking them for privileges granted by the state and or needs. Yes some rights are more important to you personally than others but bylaw they’re all rights
But what if any of these rights were only ingrained within our system because the founding fathers were religious to some degree in the first place, believing we had inalienable rights from our creator?
Oh my!
Which, coincidentally, were the very same rights they had an affinity for.
If the state doesn’t (meaning they don’t change regardless who is power) then where do they come from?
Therefore, a deference to religious rights. So there is no right to that damn cake! That’s what I’ve been saying! Finally, some backup.
That is irrelevant as there is no right to not sell the cake based on discrimination against a protected class. You don’t have the right to the cake but the baker doesn’t have the right to not sell you one.
For now it appears he does have a right to sell his wedding cakes according to his religious conscience. And with this nominee I’m optimistic this won’t change.
I don’t think that’s quite right. I believe the ruling found he couldn’t be forced to make a cake that violated his religious conscience, but that he has no right to refuse to sell one on that basis. So if a gay couple comes in and asks him to make them a cake, he is within his rights to refuse; but if they come in, point to a cake-for-sale in the display case, and say ‘We’ll take that one,’ he can’t refuse the transaction.
Well, as of today he is free to refuse to make and sell them wedding cakes.
How many weddings cakes do bakers make every day to stick into a display? I’m thinking they’d be buying a prop.
Rights if you were to read much from our forefathers. They are inherent, we are born with them, as they would said, God given. No government, no state, no king can give them to you or take them from you.
I actually believe that too. But, I’m having fun arguing.
Go to Wal-Mart and order a damn cake…
(They actually have a pretty good bakery and Deli…)