You And Yours

[connermt]

Christainity says we have 'free will'. Christianity says each person is responsible for their own actions, in regards to one's eternal life heaven/hell.
If both of these concepts are true, why do so many people feel the need to 'butt' into another person's business?
If a person wants to smoke pot in their own home, why do some christians care?
A person wants to go to a stip club, why the need for christians take pictures of them and put on social media to 'shame them'? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /13738537/
What's the point here, christians? You don't like the club, don't go to/support it. How does taking their pictures 'save their souls'?
Don't like gay marriage? Don't 'be gay' and/or get married to a gay person. How does not allowing gay marriage to be legal 'save their souls'?
Don't believe in evolution, don't teach it in your churches. How does trying to sneak in ID as 'science' in public schools 'save the souls' of the students?
The list is almost endless.

While it's not about one's 'rights' to protest or not, it's about 'winning souls for jesus!'
How do these activities bring more lost sinners to god?
How does shaming a pot smoker, alcohol drinker, strip club patron, preventing man made rights from a gay person (etc) win these people's souls?

Surely forbidding churches from teaching their beliefs at church would be worth a fight in the US, the vast majority of these things happen independent of church and church activities. Yet, some christians seem to think it's their 'job' to 'butt into' the lives of people, who have no interest in going to, looking at or participating in, a church or church activity.

What's the 'christian logic' here? How does interferring with one's personal life benefit the cause to win souls to god?

[Danmark]

In all honesty, I don't either; that's why I would bake the cake (and I can actually DO that, BTW). However, it's not about what I think, is it? If the baker thinks that it is forcing him to participate, then isn't it his religious right to refuse to participate?

Wasn't the argument against forced prayer in schools that it was unconstitutional to force students to pray...or even be silent while others pray...in class? The whole thing was about not forcing people to participate in religious rituals with which they disagreed.

....and the Supreme Court has just ruled that businesses which are wholly owned...even corporations which are wholly owned...by people with specific religious views are not required to violate their own religious faith when they do business. That's what the Hobby Lobby case was all about.

I asked a question about whether a Catholic company would be sued if it refused to participate in the wedding of previously divorced people. The answer on this thread was yes...but in reality, Catholics and their problem with divorce and remarriage has been around a lot longer than gay marriage has, and y'know what?

As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no such lawsuits.

Nobody has sued a Kosher deli for refusing to cater a Hawaiian Luau where the main dish was roast pork, either.

I can't find any lawsuits against any catering company for refusing to 'do' a Jewish wedding, either.

You might want to look, though. It's quite possible that I missed something.

I don't, not if (as in the baker's case) he would provide goods and cater any OTHER event in their lives; birthdays, other parties, etc. If is only the wedding, then it's the wedding; the religious aspect of it, NOT the 'gayness' of the people wanting the cake.

that depends. If I am refused ALL services (and that has happened to me) it would be a problem. However, if I wanted someone to cater a party celebrating my daughter's baptism...or even her wedding reception...and the refusal was to that specific event (where they would cater or provide goods for any other) I'd figure that his right not to participate in my religious ceremony is definitely more important than my right to make him do so.

I'll just find another caterer. Or do it myself....which, quite frankly, would be the better option. I made my daughter's wedding cake (have the scar on my thumb to prove it) and it was gorgeous.

Now, if a gay couple wants me to do a cake for them, I will...and I can. But I absolutely support the rights of anybody whose beliefs prohibit them from participating in a religious event with which they disagree.

Exactly the way that school prayer was eliminated in order to stop students from being forced into participating in religious rituals with which they may disagree.

It is exactly the same thing.

No, it is not 'exactly the same thing.' First you should keep in mind the Hobby Lobby case was very narrowly drawn and had to do, not with the Constitution but with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Plus it was a 5-4 Bush Court decision. In time I predict we will see many Bush Court 5-4 decisions reversed. BTW, that is what happened with the Flag salute cases. Initially the court found no problem with the flag salute. They reversed themselves a few years later.

Re: comparison to prayer in schools, again your 'exactly the same' analysis is way off the mark and goes back to the error you are making in factual analysis. You should actually read the prayer in school cases and flag salute cases yourself. If you did you would see great differences between those and baking cakes in your own shop. The crux of it was that public prayers and flag salutes were done on public property with the unstated imprimatur of the public school behind the prayer and pledges, thus effectively ostracizing anyone who did not want to participate.

This statement " If the baker thinks that it is forcing him to participate, then isn't it his religious right to refuse to participate?" [emphasis applied]
is one I vehemently disagree with. It is exactly that kind of analysis that would allow a KKK member to deny public accommodation to Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Blacks, 'Liberals,' and anyone else that did not meet his personal 'sniff' test.

The question is not subjective thoughts [which include pure prejudice and bigotry] about participation, but whether actual participation in such ceremonies is in fact being required.

BTW, the fact that a law suit has not been brought means nothing. It is a complete irrelevancy. There are many Constitutional harms and other wrongs that occur every day that no one files a lawsuit over. Every lawyer I know, including myself, has turned away many lawsuits that were not worth the candle.

Your Kosher Deli example is equally inapposite. Any one who goes to a steakhouse and demands fish & chips or anything else not on the menu, has no right to outrage. That is just an example of another 'case' any sane lawyer would turn down.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>


Your Kosher Deli example is equally inapposite. Any one who goes to a steakhouse and demands fish & chips or anything else not on the menu, has no right to outrage. That is just an example of another 'case' any sane lawyer would turn down.

Ok, first...does it really matter WHERE the force takes place, if it's force? You claim that the school prayer issue was about something happening on public property with the imprimatur of the government behind it.

How is this not the same thing? True, it's not public property...but given everything how can you possibly say that the government isn't solidly behind this forcing of people who disagree with a religious event to participate in it?

You participate, or you get sued and you get fined and your business goes under. That's the government enforcing things.

That it's not on public property makes it even worse, imo; this isn't a case of making kids who have to go to school participating in a religious ritual with which they might not agree.

This is a case of the government going into a private home/business and telling people how they have to exercise their faith in their private and business lives.

BTW, as to all those nasty folks who want to discriminate against others, like the KKK, et al? They have the right to do so. You don't like it. I don't like it...but if we don't guarantee their rights, who will guarantee ours?

Finally, as to the Kosher deli...you are quite right. Anybody who goes into a steak house and demands fish and chips is an idiot because fish and chips are not on the menu. Anybody who demands that a kosher deli serve a ham sandwich is an idiot; ham is not on the menu---for religious reasons.

Non kosher delicatessens serve ham; it's a staple of delicatessenhood for everybody BUT Orthodox Jews. Their refusal to sell/serve it is strictly based upon their religion.

Nobody gives them a hard time.

But you take a photographer or baker who doesn't offer same-sex weddings on the menu, and suddenly we have the right to force them to put it ON the menu?

I honestly do not see the difference between that and a kosher deli refusing to sell you ham.

If you want a ham sandwich, you go to a place that sells ham sandwiches. You don't force someone who keeps kosher to make one for you. If you want a gay wedding, you go to someone who 'does' gay weddings. You don't force someone who doesn't do them, for religious reasons, to violate their religious faith to do so.

They lose the business, and the money, and their reputation among those who think they are wrong.

And that is the only thing that should be done.


.....................................and the same goes for most of those other groups, too, even if the folks they 'hate' are Mormons, or gays, or short people.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Getting sued has` nothing really to do with the government though I think you are conflating issues here.


If I as a business man decide not to say for instance make a cake for a heterosexual couple and their wedding based on "religious reasons" and they sue me for discrimination. That is between the business man and the plaintiff. The government just enforces the outcome of the disagreement as decided by A JURY.


reading into colorado's anti-discriminatory laws where this trial occured


What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?


Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status.



What is a “place of public accommodation�?

A public accommodation is any place of
business engaged in offering sales or
services of any kind to the public, as well
as any place offering facilities, privileges,
advantages or other accommodations to
the public. Typical examples of public
accommodations include, but are not
limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.


Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
other places used primarily for religious
purposes are exempt from the definition of
public accommodation.



That is the law that the people of Colorado agreed upon if he does not want to operate his business under the law he doesn't have to he can simply shift and do private catering and not offer his services to the public.

I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't live in Colorado but as mentioned before lets just take gay out of the equation for a second. As a southerner growing up in the south going to an all white school going to an all white church and going to an all white country club(except for the employees which were all black sans the management). I can attest to the negative influences of allowing discriminatory practices for goods offered to the public. It does create a class- of secondary citizens or people who are looked at as less than.

It is in essence a tricky situation and I don't think in this situation there is a clear answer.

[Danmark]

<snip to here>


Your Kosher Deli example is equally inapposite. Any one who goes to a steakhouse and demands fish & chips or anything else not on the menu, has no right to outrage. That is just an example of another 'case' any sane lawyer would turn down.

Ok, first...does it really matter WHERE the force takes place, if it's force? You claim that the school prayer issue was about something happening on public property with the imprimatur of the government behind it.

How is this not the same thing? True, it's not public property...but given everything how can you possibly say that the government isn't solidly behind this forcing of people who disagree with a religious event to participate in it?

You participate, or you get sued and you get fined and your business goes under. That's the government enforcing things.

That it's not on public property makes it even worse, imo; this isn't a case of making kids who have to go to school participating in a religious ritual with which they might not agree.

This is a case of the government going into a private home/business and telling people how they have to exercise their faith in their private and business lives.

BTW, as to all those nasty folks who want to discriminate against others, like the KKK, et al? They have the right to do so. You don't like it. I don't like it...but if we don't guarantee their rights, who will guarantee ours?

Finally, as to the Kosher deli...you are quite right. Anybody who goes into a steak house and demands fish and chips is an idiot because fish and chips are not on the menu. Anybody who demands that a kosher deli serve a ham sandwich is an idiot; ham is not on the menu---for religious reasons.

Non kosher delicatessens serve ham; it's a staple of delicatessenhood for everybody BUT Orthodox Jews. Their refusal to sell/serve it is strictly based upon their religion.

Nobody gives them a hard time.

But you take a photographer or baker who doesn't offer same-sex weddings on the menu, and suddenly we have the right to force them to put it ON the menu?

I honestly do not see the difference between that and a kosher deli refusing to sell you ham.

If you want a ham sandwich, you go to a place that sells ham sandwiches. You don't force someone who keeps kosher to make one for you. If you want a gay wedding, you go to someone who 'does' gay weddings. You don't force someone who doesn't do them, for religious reasons, to violate their religious faith to do so.

They lose the business, and the money, and their reputation among those who think they are wrong.

And that is the only thing that should be done.


.....................................and the same goes for most of those other groups, too, even if the folks they 'hate' are Mormons, or gays, or short people.

Frankly, what you are demanding is that I give you an education on Constitutional law, with all of its many nuances in this area. Fine. Read the cases*, prepare summaries and I'll critique them.

In the meantime I'll take just one of your inapposite examples and explain why it is inapposite.

A kosher deli can serve ham or whatever else it wants and refuse to sell what it does not stock. But it cannot refuse to sell its stocked products to one class of customer over another class.

A bakery that sells wedding cakes, birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, 4th of July cakes or any other kind of 'special occasion' cake, but refuses to sell the same kind of cake to one class of persons solely for the reason the person is of that 'class' is violating the rights of the person wanting to buy the cake as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. AND... there is zero argument the bakery is 'participating' in the wedding ceremony.



_____________________________
*Start with the Flag Salute cases:
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940),
an 8 to 1 decision.

Which was overruled three years later by,

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943),
a 6 to 3 decision.

Please read both the majority, concurring and the dissenting opinions in both cases and be prepared to summarize them, the key arguments made, and the factual analysis applied.

Black and Douglas reversed themselves and noted this in their joint concurrence. They are two of the courts' better writers. This passage is helpful:

"The statute requires the appellees to participate in a ceremony aimed at inculcating respect for the flag and for this country. The Jehovah's Witnesses, without any desire to show disrespect for either the flag or the country, interpret the Bible as commanding, at the risk of God's displeasure, that they not go through the form of a pledge of allegiance to any flag. The devoutness of their belief is evidenced by their willingness to suffer persecution and punishment, rather than make the pledge.

No well-ordered society can leave to the individuals an absolute right to make final decisions, unassailable by the State, as to everything they will or will not do. The First Amendment does not go so far. Religious faiths, honestly held, do not free individuals from responsibility to conduct themselves obediently to laws which are either imperatively necessary to protect society as a whole from grave [319 U.S. 624, 644] and pressingly imminent dangers or which, without any general prohibition, merely regulate time, place or manner of religious activity. Decision as to the constitutionality of particular laws which strike at the substance of religious tenets and practices must be made by this Court. The duty is a solemn one, and in meeting it we cannot say that a failure, because of religious scruples, to assume a particular physical position and to repeat the words of a patriotic formula creates a grave danger to the nation. Such a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=624

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 34 by Danmark]

I learned long ago to never debate law with an attorney -- but to hire an attorney to do so if that becomes necessary. Some of my best real world friends have been attorneys and I have observed their work as well as their outcomes. Impressive.

Much or most of criminal and civil law relates to infringement of rights and property of others. Where the line of infringement lies is often a complex matter that is easily (and usually, it seems) misunderstood by "average citizens."

If in doubt, consult an attorney -- and in critical matters DO NOT say or do anything until you have that consultation.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Getting sued has` nothing really to do with the government though I think you are conflating issues here.

Excuse me?

We have one party suing another. Where does that happen? In a court of law, which is very much a government entity. That court has the power to enforce its rulings...because the government stands behind it.

Being sued is ALL about the government; the government is what the winner of the lawsuit is depending on to enforce the ruling.

If I as a business man decide not to say for instance make a cake for a heterosexual couple and their wedding based on "religious reasons" and they sue me for discrimination. That is between the business man and the plaintiff. The government just enforces the outcome of the disagreement as decided by A JURY.

That's right. However, if the jury did not have the expectation of government enforcement, it wouldn't bother. Mock trials that have no consequences are for high school.

reading into colorado's anti-discriminatory laws where this trial occured


What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?


Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status.

And that baker did not deny that gay couple anything based upon their sexual orientation. They told that couple (as one of the groom's mother testified) that they would cater a birthday party, do refreshments for any gathering, they were welcome to be there, sit, eat, be welcome.

They simply refused to participate in the wedding because the wedding was in violation of their religious beliefs.

But the government has enforced the ruling of the court. That's force.

What is a “place of public accommodation�?

A public accommodation is any place of
business engaged in offering sales or
services of any kind to the public, as well
as any place offering facilities, privileges,
advantages or other accommodations to
the public. Typical examples of public
accommodations include, but are not
limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.


Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
other places used primarily for religious
purposes are exempt from the definition of
public accommodation.

That couple was not refused service in the bakery. They were not told they had to leave, They were told that they could have anything they wanted, but that gay weddings were not on the menu.

That is the law that the people of Colorado agreed upon if he does not want to operate his business under the law he doesn't have to he can simply shift and do private catering and not offer his services to the public.

That wouldn't work.

I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't live in Colorado but as mentioned before lets just take gay out of the equation for a second. As a southerner growing up in the south going to an all white school going to an all white church and going to an all white country club(except for the employees which were all black sans the management). I can attest to the negative influences of allowing discriminatory practices for goods offered to the public. It does create a class- of secondary citizens or people who are looked at as less than.

It is in essence a tricky situation and I don't think in this situation there is a clear answer.

IF that baker had refused to offer any services to that gay couple; no birthday cakes, no table to sit at, no cupcakes for a party, nothing...then one could make a case that it was their homosexuality that was the issue.

But the only service denied was a wedding cake, because the owner did not want to participate in a gay wedding. He'd participate in any OTHER occasion; their being gay wouldn't be a problem for anything else. It was the same sex marriage, because same sex marriage was against his religion.

Now I would have made them the cake. I'd have made them a good one. But I do believe that the right to exercise our religious freedom must be protected...and let's face it. Popular opinions don't need protecting. Unpopular ones do.

[Danmark]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Getting sued has` nothing really to do with the government though I think you are conflating issues here.

Excuse me?

We have one party suing another. Where does that happen? In a court of law, which is very much a government entity. That court has the power to enforce its rulings...because the government stands behind it.

Being sued is ALL about the government; the government is what the winner of the lawsuit is depending on to enforce the ruling.

If I as a business man decide not to say for instance make a cake for a heterosexual couple and their wedding based on "religious reasons" and they sue me for discrimination. That is between the business man and the plaintiff. The government just enforces the outcome of the disagreement as decided by A JURY.

That's right. However, if the jury did not have the expectation of government enforcement, it wouldn't bother. Mock trials that have no consequences are for high school.

This is partly a matter of the definition of terms, but Daniel is correct in that unless the government is a party to the action the government is not involved.

As we all know from elementary civics, our system involves three branches. The legislature makes laws. The executive carries them out or enforces them. The judicial branch does not enforce the law. That is the role of the executive branch. The judiciary and the court system in general is more like a referee than a litigant.

For example we frequently have cases [all criminal cases, and some civil ones] where the government is a party. But the judiciary is independent and must be. If the courts were considered 'government' then they could not be the impartial arbiter of claims between citizens and government.

Therefore, the statement "Being sued is ALL about the government," is misleading if not false. The legal system simply provides a forum to settle disputes that otherwise might be settled in back alleys. It is essential to both fundamental fairness and to the appearance of fairness that the legal system be, and be seen as independent of government functions.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Getting sued has` nothing really to do with the government though I think you are conflating issues here.

Excuse me?

We have one party suing another. Where does that happen? In a court of law, which is very much a government entity. That court has the power to enforce its rulings...because the government stands behind it.

Being sued is ALL about the government; the government is what the winner of the lawsuit is depending on to enforce the ruling.

If I as a business man decide not to say for instance make a cake for a heterosexual couple and their wedding based on "religious reasons" and they sue me for discrimination. That is between the business man and the plaintiff. The government just enforces the outcome of the disagreement as decided by A JURY.

That's right. However, if the jury did not have the expectation of government enforcement, it wouldn't bother. Mock trials that have no consequences are for high school.

This is partly a matter of the definition of terms, but Daniel is correct in that unless the government is a party to the action the government is not involved.

As we all know from elementary civics, our system involves three branches. The legislature makes laws. The executive carries them out or enforces them. The judicial branch does not enforce the law. That is the role of the executive branch. The judiciary and the court system in general is more like a referee than a litigant.

For example we frequently have cases [all criminal cases, and some civil ones] where the government is a party. But the judiciary is independent and must be. If the courts were considered 'government' then they could not be the impartial arbiter of claims between citizens and government.

Therefore, the statement "Being sued is ALL about the government," is misleading if not false. The legal system simply provides a forum to settle disputes that otherwise might be settled in back alleys. It is essential to both fundamental fairness and to the appearance of fairness that the legal system be, and be seen as independent of government functions.

We in the USA have a government 'by the people, of the people and for the people." Both Thomas Hobbs and John Locke tell us that any government is in power strictly by the consent of the people; when that consent is withdrawn, the government ceases to exist. Sometimes that consent must be withdrawn rather violently.

The point is, any time a court convenes, it IS representing the government. You mention the three branches...remember the operative term here: the three branches OF GOVERNMENT.

If a court rules on a lawsuit, it is a government ruling because the court is a branch of government. The court will assign fines or actions regarding that ruling, and those fines and actions will be enforced...by the government. Not by anybody else.

When a jury sits, it has become 'the government' as certainly as any elected official reporting for a congressional session.

Or to be even more clear; if someone ignores the rulings of a civil court, and refuses to pay the fines, what happens?

All sorts of nasty things, enforced by the government, up to and including jail time. You know, being a guest of the government.

Lawsuits are considered to be precedents, to be consulted by future legislators, and by future judges in future lawsuits; a solid case of government handling stuff.


If you want to NOT have the government weigh in on something, that's called 'talking,' or 'boycott,' or 'punch the guy,"...some of those non-government solutions may well get you in trouble with the government, though, so be careful.

[Danmark]

We in the USA have a government 'by the people, of the people and for the people." Both Thomas Hobbs and John Locke tell us that any government is in power strictly by the consent of the people; when that consent is withdrawn, the government ceases to exist. Sometimes that consent must be withdrawn rather violently.

The point is, any time a court convenes, it IS representing the government. You mention the three branches...remember the operative term here: the three branches OF GOVERNMENT.

If a court rules on a lawsuit, it is a government ruling because the court is a branch of government. The court will assign fines or actions regarding that ruling, and those fines and actions will be enforced...by the government. Not by anybody else.

When a jury sits, it has become 'the government' as certainly as any elected official reporting for a congressional session.

Thank you for that last. By pressing too far you have undermined your argument. The jury is certainly not part of the government. The jury is convened to be an adjudicator of facts, and in civil cases to award a measure of damages. As I said, it is partly a matter of a definition of terms. That is why it is not just helpful but necessary to keep the three branches separate. By your analysis, juries and even 'the people' are 'the government.' What you've done by defining 'government' as broadly as you have is to say the government is all of us.

Thus you have obliterated the very distinction Daniel was making.

Let's review:

He wrote:

Getting sued has nothing really to do with the government though I think you are conflating issues here.

You responded:

Excuse me?

We have one party suing another. Where does that happen? In a court of law, which is very much a government entity.

This response is the very 'conflating' Daniel warned about. To make this clearer, the operative word is "sued." Daniel is completely correct, 'suing' has nothing to do with the government unless the government is a party. You have been conflating, 'enforcement,' an executive function of government, with a private party bringing a lawsuit; i.e. "suing."

Next, you conflated 'enforcement' of a judgement [or the law] with the forum in which the decision takes place.

Daniel's point was that the government does not make the decision to file a lawsuit between private parties. He is correct. This decision has nothing to do with government. This is the distinction you have attempted an end run around by saying everyone is part of the government. This is sophistry because it is only correct in a hypertechnical way that completely misses or ignores the point that started this argument: in civil cases between private parties the government does not sue.

[dianaiad]

We in the USA have a government 'by the people, of the people and for the people." Both Thomas Hobbs and John Locke tell us that any government is in power strictly by the consent of the people; when that consent is withdrawn, the government ceases to exist. Sometimes that consent must be withdrawn rather violently.

The point is, any time a court convenes, it IS representing the government. You mention the three branches...remember the operative term here: the three branches OF GOVERNMENT.

If a court rules on a lawsuit, it is a government ruling because the court is a branch of government. The court will assign fines or actions regarding that ruling, and those fines and actions will be enforced...by the government. Not by anybody else.

When a jury sits, it has become 'the government' as certainly as any elected official reporting for a congressional session.

Thank you for that last. By pressing too far you have undermined your argument. The jury is certainly not part of the government. The jury is convened to be an adjudicator of facts, and in civil cases to award a measure of damages. As I said, it is partly a matter of a definition of terms. That is why it is not just helpful but necessary to keep the three branches separate. By your analysis, juries and even 'the people' are 'the government.' What you've done by defining 'government' as broadly as you have is to say the government is all of us.

Thus you have obliterated the very distinction Daniel was making.

Let's review:

He wrote:

Getting sued has nothing really to do with the government though I think you are conflating issues here.

You responded:

Excuse me?

We have one party suing another. Where does that happen? In a court of law, which is very much a government entity.

This response is the very 'conflating' Daniel warned about. To make this clearer, the operative word is "sued." Daniel is completely correct, 'suing' has nothing to do with the government unless the government is a party. You have been conflating, 'enforcement,' an executive function of government, with a private party bringing a lawsuit; i.e. "suing."

Next, you conflated 'enforcement' of a judgement [or the law] with the forum in which the decision takes place.

Daniel's point was that the government does not make the decision to file a lawsuit between private parties. He is correct. This decision has nothing to do with government. This is the distinction you have attempted an end run around by saying everyone is part of the government. This is sophistry because it is only correct in a hypertechnical way that completely misses or ignores the point that started this argument: in civil cases between private parties the government does not sue.

I see...

Then Daniel is erecting a strawman.

He's right; the decision to sue is not a function of the government...though nobody sues unless he thinks that he'll win in court (the government) and the judgment enforced (by the government).

Nobody is harmed by simply being sued...if you don't count the hassle, the loss of reputation, the stress and the money it takes to defend a lawsuit. The harm comes when the judgment is rendered against him. That judgment is 'government."

And do not tell me that a verdict by the court means that what the court found is therefore 'right and good,' and thus constitutional and nobody should have any complaints. I have noticed that this is only true if the verdict is something one agrees with. If it isn't (like the Hobby Lobby case where the opinion was expressed that it was just a case of a 'Bush Court' and will of course be overturned, so it doesn't count), well then it doesn't count.

But it does. There have been many court judgments that have been overturned, either on appeal or waaaay down the road through a revisit of the matter, or through legislation.

Oh....and as to the jury not being 'part of the government'...say, what? When a juror is called, he or she is sworn in; the task is given them, and for that task, and for that trial, the jury is THE most important aspect of any court...which is part of the government.

And yes, 'we are all the government." That's the way it is supposed to be; we appoint and elect representatives, and call people to represent us in a jury. We appoint them to the government. Each one of us, someday, will be called to do this.

Well, most of us will.

And when we are, we are very much 'the government' during that time.