talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

a private program that meets public requirements for a public license so as to be in compliance with public laws.

Yes, point? It's a private program.

Actually it sounds like he's an agent of the state.

He doesn't issue the permit. He signs off on training. The state issues the permit. He's not an agent of the state.

Why does his signature carry any weight with the state?

Because, he filled out this form-

https://txapps.texas.gov/txapp/txdps/chl/

Weak sauce.

IS HE or is he NOT licensed by the State?

That's the relevant point here.

You have a driver's license.

You're licensed by the state.

Point?

Uh no. not what we're talking about.

Being a "Licensed Professional" or having a license to enable a
service to people is NOT the same as a driver's license.

If you're going to make a comparison, merely having the word "license" in the sentence is not enough...

That licensing laws a) exist and b) are largely handled in an insane manner is merely a distraction from the basic point here regarding freedom of association.

Look -- whether YOU agree with the law doesnt mean the law doesnt exist.

The "distraction" is trying to justify that this guy is licensed by the state, but is acting in a manner contrary to state law.

There's no real "drama" on this point -- except you guys dont like the fact people aren't applauding his attempt to subvert the laws.

Is he violating the law? Apparently.

Is the law unjust? Absolutely.

Dispensing medical marijuana is against the law, too. I'll applaud people who go into that business anyway, thanks.

(deleted comment)

For the private sector? No, not at all.

(deleted comment)

Maybe, maybe not. It's not the state's business, regardless.

You and I likely wouldn't enter an establishment that was discriminatory. Few would overall. It likely wouldn't end well for those businesses.

(no subject)

chessdev.livejournal.com - 2011-10-30 20:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-10-30 20:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

chessdev.livejournal.com - 2011-10-30 21:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-10-30 21:42 (UTC) - Expand

Did you teach geometry? You seem to like drawing tangents.

and I like the "unjust" label you apply NOT to the guy who discriminates against others....

but to the people who call him out on it.

On ONE hand rights are important.
On the OTHER hand you defend the ability of people to take rights away from others based on
race or religion...

nice "double standard" you have their -- the RIGHT to oppress apprently is more important than the right to NOT be oppressed.

Then again -- what else is new?

and I like the "unjust" label you apply NOT to the guy who discriminates against others....

but to the people who call him out on it.

Neither is unjust, but the topic is the law and such, no?

On ONE hand rights are important.
On the OTHER hand you defend the ability of people to take rights away from others based on
race or religion...

Both are rights. People have the right of free association as well.

nice "double standard" you have their -- the RIGHT to oppress apprently is more important than the right to NOT be oppressed.

Then again -- what else is new?

No one has the right to someone else's goods or services. That's a point you seem to be missing while taking plenty of time for backhanded remarks.

If you need to be licensed by the state to operate... and if compliance to State law is a condition of you license:

Then YES...you ***DO*** have a right to someone else's good or services, because state law says you do.

I hope you get a doctor who shares your beliefs, but doesnt particularly like whatever group you belong to. Would be interesting to see you re-evaluate your beliefs in the midst of pains in your chest, bleeding out, or some other condition of urgency...

Ideology with no context of impact on the people we're discussing is meaningless. I just dont know what else it would take for you to understand the experience of the oppressed.

If you need to be licensed by the state to operate... and if compliance to State law is a condition of you license:

Then YES...you ***DO*** have a right to someone else's good or services, because state law says you do.

Which is another issue altogether, of course. Licensing laws are pretty insane, in part because it implies that people have a right to someone else's goods and services. The myriad of problems licensing laws create is an entirely different topic, but that's the on-topic problem they pose here.

I hope you get a doctor who shares your beliefs, but doesnt particularly like whatever group you belong to. Would be interesting to see you re-evaluate your beliefs in the midst of pains in your chest, bleeding out, or some other condition of urgency...

I probably would not. I'm not one for sacrificing his principles in the face of adversity.

Ideology with no context of impact on the people we're discussing is meaningless. I just dont know what else it would take for you to understand the experience of the oppressed.

As an atheist, I am "oppressed" in many areas. As a man, I was "oppressed" in my previous line of work. No, it cannot and does not come close to the type of oppression you're trying to equate this to, but even if personal experience was relevant to this (it isn't), I've dealt with an inkling enough of it, thanks.

(no subject)

chessdev.livejournal.com - 2011-10-30 21:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-10-30 21:48 (UTC) - Expand

You might have a point then. Sounds like he is issuing permits on behalf of the state.

http://www.texaschl.us/faq.htm#requirements

He issues a certification notice to the applicant who then files it with the state in their application.

Literally any CHL approved instructor in Texas can give you one.

Which is an entirely separate problem.

I think a few pertinent questions should probably be asked and answered here:

1.) Can the state issue licenses directly? Do they?

2.) Is the service provider in this case employed by, or in simply having a license, acting as a functionary of the state? Are all licensed businesses functionaries of the state?

Then there really is no private portion left which cannot be removed at the whim of a majority. Proximity rather than functionary is all that is required to be considered a public institution, and proximity is mandated by law.

The question becomes, do private institutions exist at the pleasure of the public institutions, or should we consider that more definitive and balanced boundaries should exist between the two?

If not, should we then be surprised at all when the private institutions attempt to more heavily influence the public ones? Or when they succeed?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only