Christian response to homosexual marriage?

[bjs]

Should Christians in the USA support or oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in their state?

I put this debate topic in this sub-forum because I’m not really interested in atheists’ opinions here, but I do wonder what Christians think.

On the one hand, we do not have to look far in our world to see what happens when people try to enforce their worldview on others. The result is always disastrous. I do not like the idea of Christians trying to legal enforce their worldview.

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost. Opposing or abstaining from homosexual marriage is outlawed on the charge of discrimination. If gay marriage is legalized then we should expect, at the very minimum, that those who are morally opposed to homosexual action will still be required to act in support of homosexual actions if they wish to do business in their state.

I am unsure of the right approach. What do others Christians think?

[Nickman]

My point that I am trying to make is that you are assigning a specific right that is not defined nor spelled out in the constitution. You are using a vague line in the 9th amendment to assign your belief to it. If I believe it was my right to be a drug mule and smuggle heroin in my rectum is it a violation of my 9th amendment rights?

You are proving the exact reason why the 9th Amendment was created. Because people in later generations may limit rights based on the enumeration of the first 8. The only crime you can commit according to the Constitution is one against a person's Life, Liberty, or Property. If none of these have been violated then no crime has been committed. That is why traffic laws are violations of our Constitutional right to travel freely as long as we don't harm someone's Life, Liberty, or Property. It is the same as if I never left my house if none have been violated. Giving someone a ticket for speeding because you could harm someone's life is the same as saying that the person is guilty before a crime has been committed.

Back on subject: The true issue here is not discrimination. It is property rights. The person who owns the property has rights to it and who they wish to sell to or not sell to. The customer retains no rights to a person's property or services unless the owner of that property or service decides to provide them to them. Next time you get denied a loan or insurance policy, let them know that you have a right to their services and that they must provide them to you. Or is that discrimination against people with bad credit?

No one has a right to demand property of another person. That decision is solely up to the property owner as to what they will do with it.

after all it is my property(my recutum) my life(the health risks associated) , liberty(my choice and passion to be a drug mule)

That would be your right, yes.

[Danmark]

My point that I am trying to make is that you are assigning a specific right that is not defined nor spelled out in the constitution. You are using a vague line in the 9th amendment to assign your belief to it. If I believe it was my right to be a drug mule and smuggle heroin in my rectum is it a violation of my 9th amendment rights?

You are proving the exact reason why the 9th Amendment was created. Because people in later generations may limit rights based on the enumeration of the first 8. The only crime you can commit according to the Constitution is one against a person's Life, Liberty, or Property. If none of these have been violated then no crime has been committed. That is why traffic laws are violations of our Constitutional right to travel freely as long as we don't harm someone's Life, Liberty, or Property. It is the same as if I never left my house if none have been violated. Giving someone a ticket for speeding because you could harm someone's life is the same as saying that the person is guilty before a crime has been committed.

Back on subject: The true issue here is not discrimination. It is property rights. The person who owns the property has rights to it and who they wish to sell to or not sell to. The customer retains no rights to a person's property or services unless the owner of that property or service decides to provide them to them. Next time you get denied a loan or insurance policy, let them know that you have a right to their services and that they must provide them to you. Or is that discrimination against people with bad credit?

No one has a right to demand property of another person. That decision is solely up to the property owner as to what they will do with it.

after all it is my property(my recutum) my life(the health risks associated) , liberty(my choice and passion to be a drug mule)

That would be your right, yes.

I'm surprised to see this discussion has entered the area of the rectum.

To clear the air and get back out into the open, as I wrote in post 69, this discussion does indeed deal with both discrimination and property rights. When it comes to businesses that deal with "public accommodation," like hotels, restaurants and grocery stores, the owners of those businesses may not lawfully determine who they will and will not accommodate based on a patron's Race; Color; National origin/ancestry; Sex/gender; Religion/creed; Disability (physical and mental). This means that the property owner of a grocery store cannot deny entry to his store, nor refuse to sell his goods to someone because they are either gay, or married to someone of the same sex.

It's interesting that Ninth Amendment has been suggested as somehow overruling the other rights granted by the Constitution because that is the opposite of its intent.

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

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to deny the government the power to deny the citizens any right on the ground that it was not specifically mentioned. The Ninth is infrequently referred to, but the classic case when it was invoked was Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). The State passed a law banning the use of contraceptives. The State argued that marital privacy and a general right to privacy were not specifically 'enumerated' in the first eight. Justice Douglas made short work of that argument:

"To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep–rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . "

Property rights are not absolute and may not be asserted to deny other rights, or to deny equal protection under the law.

A short summary of the Ninth Amendment is available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... #amdt9_hd1

[Nickman]

Who owns the goods being sold in a store? The owner! Does the owner of the goods have a right to decide who they sell to? It is their stuff by the way. They OWN it. It is simple. You guys are making the owner lose their rights. This debate is all about property rights. No one has a right to my property or anyone else's unless consent is given to sell it by the owner.

It is important to distinguish between what a person believes is accurate re: his rights and what is the current state of the law. Again I refer you to the landmark Heart of Atlanta case.

The fact is, according to civil rights and business law experts, when business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.
http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/new ... f887a.html
BTW, that site is operated by a Tucson business journal and offers a wealth of information for Arizona businessmen on this subject; e.g:

Public Accommodation
Discrimination in places of public accommodation
What is protected?
Race; Color; National origin/ancestry; Sex/gender; Religion/creed; Disability (physical and mental)
Places of public accommodation include:
Restaurants; Banks; Hotels; Museums; Parks; Day care centers; Health clubs; Stores (grocery, department); Theaters; Health care facilities
Source: Arizona Attorney General’s Office Civil Rights Division

One of the first things a law student is surprised to learn is that when he buys real property, he does not 'own' it in any absolute sense. What he has purchased is a certain bundle of rights, which vary depending on deed or contract.

Generally he has purchased the right to exclude others; however there are circumstances where the right of the State trumps even that right and, for example, allows the police entry against the owner's will. I may not like that if it is my house, but that is the law, and I grudgingly may agree with it when a court has granted the State a right to enter to search for a terrorist.

Then you have given up your rights. The states and the Fed Gov are there to protect your rights that are unalienable. Any law created against your unalienable rights are null and void and enforcement thereof is a violation. This would mean that our legislators are wrong and in violation of creating laws that limit your rights.

Lien: A claim upon a part of another's property that arises because of an unpaid debt related to that property and that operates as an encumbrance on the property until the debt is satisfied.
Alienable: Transferrable to the ownership of another.
Unalienable: not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated

Re: the law, the question has been long settled. The owner of a 'public accommodation' absolutely may NOT refuse service due to a person's race, gender or beliefs.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. Any law that would hinder my right to my property and who I decide to sell it to is a violation.

Not only is this the law, but it is a good policy in my opinion. Consider what would happen if this were not the law. Any hotel, restaurant, bank, or grocery store could refuse service or sales to anyone for any reason. Christians, Jews, atheists, Mormons, Irish, the blind, those with canes or in wheelchairs; people who just don't "look right" according to the owner's whim.

And prejudice is a right of the people. I disagree with those who are prejudice, but they maintain that right to do so. They also have the right to their property and services they provide. Those who decide to not sell to certain people will sorely lose business from the group that they decide not to sell to as well as sympathizers of that group. That is the greatness of a free market. While Joe's Lumber yard down the road is thriving because they sell to everyone regardless of race, gender, etc. Johnny's Lumber yard is suffering and losing business because they do discriminate.

And that is exactly what happened in the American South and other regions of the country before passage and enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Negroes" were not allowed to go to most hotels or restaurants; had to sit in the back of the bus; had to use "colored" drinking fountains and rest rooms. "WHITE ONLY" signs were ubiquitous.

That is because they were still not considered citizens with full rights as they already retained by the Constitution. Their rights were not being recognized or enforced as they should have been. They should have already had their rights to public uses that they pay taxes on. But no one has the right to someone else's property such as a business or the goods and services they provide. The customer does not trump the rights of the owner of the property. They do not enter a store with the right to the property that they see being sold. It is only until the owner decides to enter into a sales agreement with them that they retain right of the property they seek. Once purchased, it is now the property of the customer and they may sell to whoever they want.

It seems counterproductive to not sell to everyone if you are in the business of making money. In most places you cut your potential revenue by a 1/4 or even 1/2. However; that is the right of the business owner to do with their property as they wish, even to their own demise.

I remember a case in law school that I disagreed with vehemently, Wickard v. Filburn. Poor old Roscoe Filburn was not allowed to grow more wheat than the amount the government set, even tho' the excess was for his own consumption and never left his property. This was because of a law passed during the great depression to support the price of wheat and the court's rationale was that Filburn's action affected "interstate commerce".

Filburn argued that since the wheat for him and his farm and never entered commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market and have an effect on interstate commerce.
As outrageous as this may sound, it is still the law of the land, tho' in subsequent cases the Courts have decided the government's ability to so regulate is not absolute. The rationale and history of the case is interesting. You can read a reasonable summary at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

That is an unconstitutional ruling and a violation of one's property rights. Whatever I grow on my property is mine and I maintain the right to sell it or not sell it to a person who wants to buy it. This would be another violation of the Fed Gov trying to regulate commerce instead of letting the market grow as it should. Mr. Filburn would also have the right to sell his wheat to whoever he wanted or not sell to whoever he wanted.

I fully agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sympathize with those who have ever been discriminated against based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. I do think that it violates the right of property owners to serve who they decide to serve to because it is their property. It paints private property as public property. I don't want to sound like the bad guy here, and am only approaching this from the Constitutional side.

If a customer goes to a fancy restaurant that requires nice clothes yet the person does not like to wear fancy clothes, they will be removed. Or maybe they cant afford nice clothes and just want a nice meal that they can afford. Have they been discriminated against? You could make an argument that they have. So if it is legal to turn away customers based on appearance in this case, why is it wrong if the owner is a bigot in the other case? Why can a fancy restaurant turn away the less fortunate based on appearance and something they cannot necessarily change due to their income?

We cannot force people to be tolerant and loving to all people. That can only come through the heart and conscience of a person. Those who would welcome everyone regardless into their establishments would quickly weed out the ones that don't. It would foster better customer service relationships instead of the forced obligation to serve those you may be prejudice to.

[Nickman]

Property rights are not absolute and may not be asserted to deny other rights, or to deny equal protection under the law.

A short summary of the Ninth Amendment is available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... #amdt9_hd1

If Property Rights are not absolute then you enter a road to tyranny. In fact property rights are mentioned more than any other thing in the Constitution. I think you are wrong on the property issue.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04 ... ty-rights/
* The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

* They empowered Congress to protect intellectual property by authorizing copyright and patent laws (I-8-8).

* They granted Congress authority to punish piracy, a crime directed principally against property (I-8-10).

* They denied Congress and the states authority to pass ex post facto laws (I-9-3 and I-10), a ban that some of the Founders thought would protect property.

* When it became clear that the ban on ex post facto laws was not broad enough to protect property, they partially plugged the gap with the Fifth Amendment, which (1) prevented any person from being deprived of . . . property, without due process of law� and (2) required compensation when property [was] taken for public use.

* They added a section (Article I, Section 10) with several provisions protecting financial assets against state governments.

* Similarly, they inserted a section providing that those who had loaned money to the former Confederation Congress would be able to enforce those debts against the new government (V-1).

* They granted the federal courts jurisdiction over interstate land claims and interstate debts to limit the extent to which state courts could discriminate against the property rights of out-of-staters (III-2-1 and III-2-2).

* They added the Full Faith and Credit Clause (IV-1) partly to require state courts to honor property records in other states.

* Most of the Founders opposed slavery, but given the system of the day, they even included provisions that protected property� in slaves (e.g., I-9-1).

* The Constitutions Privileges and Immunities Clause (IV-2-1) protected the rights of citizens doing business and owning land in other states (including, by the way, the rights of women and free African-American citizens).

* The Founders gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers). This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private sector.

* The Founders inserted a provision specifically protecting the property of family members of those convicted of treason (III-3-2).

* They adopted the Third Amendment, which largely prevented the government from quartering troops in private homes.

* They adopted the Fourth Amendment, which protected “persons, houses, papers, and effects� from unreasonable search and seizure.

* They added the Eighth Amendment, which barred excessive fines.

[Danmark]

Property rights are not absolute and may not be asserted to deny other rights, or to deny equal protection under the law.

A short summary of the Ninth Amendment is available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... #amdt9_hd1

If Property Rights are not absolute then you enter a road to tyranny. In fact property rights are mentioned more than any other thing in the Constitution. I think you are wrong on the property issue.

It is important to distinguish "real property" from property in general. Real property is a term of art. It refers to raw land or acreage and the buildings appurtenant thereto. Here's a fuller definition, and one I alluded to previously in this thread:

"real property n. 1) all land, structures, firmly attached and integrated equipment (such as light fixtures or a well pump), anything growing on the land, and all "interests" in the property which may be the right to future ownership (remainder), right to occupy for a period of time (tenancy or life estate) the right to drill for oil, the right to get the property back (a reversion) if it is no longer used for its current purpose (such as use for a hospital, school or city hall), use of airspace (condominium) or an easement across another's property. Real property should be thought of as a group of rights like a bundle of sticks which can be divided. It is distinguished from the other type of property, personal property, which is made up of movable items. 2) one of the principal areas of law like contracts, negligence, probate, family law and criminal law." [emphasis mine]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... l+property

This is not a matter of opinion. This is settled law in both the United States and the English common law. The next time you think your real property is owned absolutely, research eminent domain, the right of the State to seize your property for a public purpose. Tons of cases on it. The government must provide compensation of course.

[Nickman]

Property rights are not absolute and may not be asserted to deny other rights, or to deny equal protection under the law.

A short summary of the Ninth Amendment is available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... #amdt9_hd1

If Property Rights are not absolute then you enter a road to tyranny. In fact property rights are mentioned more than any other thing in the Constitution. I think you are wrong on the property issue.

It is important to distinguish "real property" from property in general. Real property is a term of art. It refers to raw land or acreage and the buildings appurtenant thereto. Here's a fuller definition, and one I alluded to previously in this thread:

"real property n. 1) all land, structures, firmly attached and integrated equipment (such as light fixtures or a well pump), anything growing on the land, and all "interests" in the property which may be the right to future ownership (remainder), right to occupy for a period of time (tenancy or life estate) the right to drill for oil, the right to get the property back (a reversion) if it is no longer used for its current purpose (such as use for a hospital, school or city hall), use of airspace (condominium) or an easement across another's property. Real property should be thought of as a group of rights like a bundle of sticks which can be divided. It is distinguished from the other type of property, personal property, which is made up of movable items. 2) one of the principal areas of law like contracts, negligence, probate, family law and criminal law." [emphasis mine]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... l+property

This is not a matter of opinion. This is settled law in both the United States and the English common law. The next time you think your real property is owned absolutely, research eminent domain, the right of the State to seize your property for a public purpose. Tons of cases on it. The government must provide compensation of course.

I understand that and in the Keystone Pipeline thread I was vehemently against eminent domain because it is unconstitutional, especially when used for corporate interests. If the Government wants to take your property with compensation as outlined in the 5th Amendment it must be for the best interests of the public and seen to it that it is legit before the Supreme Court. There has to be a really good reason for the government to seize your property for public benefit. It cannot be taken without just cause. The property you own such as real estate, business, and goods are all your property to do as you wish until the government has given ample reason that the property should be used for the public interest. So even according to the above statement, a person who has a business owns that business unless under lease or loan. If there is no lease or loan as part of the agreement, then the property is paid for, the owner owns the property indefinitely and it can be passed down as a life estate.

Types of real property defined:
Fee simple: An estate of indefinite duration, that can be freely transferred. The most common and perhaps most absolute type of estate, under which the tenant enjoys the greatest discretion over the disposal of the property.
Conditional Fee simple: An estate lasting forever as long as one or more conditions stipulated by the deed's grantor does not occur. If such a condition does occur, the property reverts to the grantor, or a remainder interest is passed on to a third party.
Fee tail: An estate which, upon the death of the tenant, is transferred to his or her heirs.
Life estate: An estate lasting for the natural life of the grantee, called a "life tenant." If a life estate can be sold, a sale does not change its duration, which is limited by the natural life of the original grantee.
A life estate pur autre vie is held by one person for the natural life of another person. Such an estate may arise if the original life tenant sells her life estate to another, or if the life estate is originally granted pur autre vie.
Leasehold: An estate of limited term, as set out in a contract, called a lease, between the party granted the leasehold, called the lessee, and another party, called the lessor, having a longer estate in the property. For example, an apartment-dweller with a one year lease has a leasehold estate in her apartment. Lessees typically agree to pay a stated rent to the lessor.

To get back on subject: Eminent Domain does not apply in our conversation. We are talking about owners of property not seized by the Fed Gov and who retain all rights to that property. Since they own the property, goods and services, it is within their rights to sell it to whoever they want.

The customer has no rights to any of the property for sell. Claiming that the customer has the right to the property being sold makes the owner of the property lose their rights. Until a transaction is made, the seller owns the property and the right to do with it as they desire, even if that is to deny certain customers from purchasing.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 73 by Nickman]

Let me try this angle Nick. Who owns the moon? I mean when we get down to the nitty gritty of it, the moon is just another piece of property it has some really good resources to(tons of titanium). Frankly whomever owned the moon would be incredibly rich right? Lets say I get a rocket that can take me to the moon and back. I get to the moon and declare I own it. Do I really own the moon? Or is the moon everyone's to share?

Lets say the US government suddenly fell apart who would own what? Would you really own what you own? or would you own only what you could defend?

The point is, that it is the government that enforces your property rights. The power to own something is backed by the government. That is why property rights are not natural rights. Property rights are an extension of the government we live in.

Before the US government and the Brits and the French arrived here no one owned land. Going back further still before civilization you only owned what you could carry or defend. There is no natural right to property. When you buy property or land you are entering in an agreement with the United States as well as the person you buy the property from. As it is the state that enforces and provides your property rights.

The state is run by the people and the property rights are determined by the people. If you disagree with the property rights as they are change them. No one is stopping you from trying to get people together and vote a certain way with regards to property rights.

If by tyranny you mean an oppressive power over an individual by the government. This hardly fits the bill. The only oppression going on is the state refusing to allow someone else to oppress.

I mean let's really think about the ramifications of what you are putting out here.

Let's hypothetically say I am black and lets say that all the hospitals in the the area are owned by white people. They have a policy to deny service to all black people after all that is their property right that you have proposed. Now lets say that I get into an accident and need immediate medical treatment. The nature of the accident is that it is a very easy to mend but if left untreated would put my life in peril. I go to all the hospitals in my area and they all refuse service because I am black.

That my friend is the definition of tyranny. Tyranny isn't always the government using an oppressive force sometimes its the people. In this case it's just a wedding cake and no one's life is in threat of danger. But where do we draw the line? Can a hospital refuse service to homosexuals?

And this is more to the point as the religious hospitals are slowly becoming the majority. In certain parts of Washington state this is becoming an issue because within the next few years half of all of Washington's hospitals will be Catholic run.

Is it their religious right and property right to deny service to homosexuals? Prevent contraception from being dispensed? What if all the local hospitals in your area are religious do they have the property and religious right to deny yours?

After all these are PRIVATE religious institutions? When we look beyond just the bakers and delis and what have you and actually look at the ramifications it becomes absurd to say that businesses can discriminate however they please. Sure we can have some level of discrimination but there is a line we must draw at some point and at the very basic we shouldn't discriminate based on Skin, creed, gender, and orientation. If you don't want to serve these people don't open your doors to public accommodation.

[Danmark]

I understand that and in the Keystone Pipeline thread I was vehemently against eminent domain because it is unconstitutional, especially when used for corporate interests. If the Government wants to take your property with compensation as outlined in the 5th Amendment it must be for the best interests of the public and seen to it that it is legit before the Supreme Court. There has to be a really good reason for the government to seize your property for public benefit. It cannot be taken without just cause. The property you own such as real estate, business, and goods are all your property to do as you wish until the government has given ample reason that the property should be used for the public interest. So even according to the above statement, a person who has a business owns that business unless under lease or loan. If there is no lease or loan as part of the agreement, then the property is paid for, the owner owns the property indefinitely and it can be passed down as a life estate.

Types of real property defined:
Fee simple: An estate of indefinite duration, that can be freely transferred. The most common and perhaps most absolute type of estate, under which the tenant enjoys the greatest discretion over the disposal of the property.
Conditional Fee simple: An estate lasting forever as long as one or more conditions stipulated by the deed's grantor does not occur. If such a condition does occur, the property reverts to the grantor, or a remainder interest is passed on to a third party.
Fee tail: An estate which, upon the death of the tenant, is transferred to his or her heirs.
Life estate: An estate lasting for the natural life of the grantee, called a "life tenant." If a life estate can be sold, a sale does not change its duration, which is limited by the natural life of the original grantee.
A life estate pur autre vie is held by one person for the natural life of another person. Such an estate may arise if the original life tenant sells her life estate to another, or if the life estate is originally granted pur autre vie.
Leasehold: An estate of limited term, as set out in a contract, called a lease, between the party granted the leasehold, called the lessee, and another party, called the lessor, having a longer estate in the property. For example, an apartment-dweller with a one year lease has a leasehold estate in her apartment. Lessees typically agree to pay a stated rent to the lessor.

To get back on subject: Eminent Domain does not apply in our conversation. We are talking about owners of property not seized by the Fed Gov and who retain all rights to that property. Since they own the property, goods and services, it is within their rights to sell it to whoever they want.

The customer has no rights to any of the property for sell. Claiming that the customer has the right to the property being sold makes the owner of the property lose their rights. Until a transaction is made, the seller owns the property and the right to do with it as they desire, even if that is to deny certain customers from purchasing.

Nick, I think you are framing the issue incorrectly. You are correct that the customer in the grocery store has no right to the property, until he purchases it. But the vendor cannot deny him the right to purchase based on the customer belonging to a "suspect class." You can argue against this of course, but you cannot meaningfully argue that, that IS the law.

By the way, there is, or was another form of right to real property that is closer to what you are suggesting or hoping for:

Allodial title: 'Real property that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodium is "Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof."'
I doubt there is any place where such title still exist, if it ever did. The feudal Lord could always ignore such titles if his army was powerful enough.

Eminent domain may be abused. This is what those lawsuits are all about.
The concept is not unreasonable however. Let's take the most common example:

The gov'mint wants to build a bridge, or widen a street, or construct a dam which will flood a valley and leave homeowners literally under water. Even if both the government, the courts, and 99% of the landowners agree that it is in the public's interest to sell, and even if they want to sell, a single owner could hold the population and the gov'mint hostage by demanding millions or even billions of dollars over the value of the property.

Imagine what would happen if streets that had been laid out for one or two lanes 100 years earlier, could not be widened to serve the growing city's needs because one guy, just one guy digs in his heels and extorts unreasonable compensation.

I certainly can see how someone feels eminent domain is "wrong" or unfair, but there is no question that it is the law. All laws can be abused of course. When it comes to government my natural inclination is to be an anarchist, but of course have to accept some compromises or the entire fabric of society pulls apart and the ensuing chaos would be much worse than having some modest rule of law.

[Nickman]

Let me try this angle Nick. Who owns the moon? I mean when we get down to the nitty gritty of it, the moon is just another piece of property it has some really good resources to(tons of titanium). Frankly whomever owned the moon would be incredibly rich right? Lets say I get a rocket that can take me to the moon and back. I get to the moon and declare I own it. Do I really own the moon? Or is the moon everyone's to share?

Lets say the US government suddenly fell apart who would own what? Would you really own what you own? or would you own only what you could defend?

The point is, that it is the government that enforces your property rights. The power to own something is backed by the government. That is why property rights are not natural rights. Property rights are an extension of the government we live in.

Then you have no rights other than what the government allows you to have. Thanks for another reason that proves why we have a Constitution in the first place. They created the Constitution to give the power to the people, not the government. The government was supposed to be our enforcer of rights we have innately. We were to govern our government, not them govern us. Property rights are the very first thing that our founders spoke about when it comes to our rights and the top priority. If you cannot own something then you have nothing. Property rights are not a privilege or extension of government. They are inalienable rights, meaning they are non-negotiable and cannot be taken away.

Before the US government and the Brits and the French arrived here no one owned land. Going back further still before civilization you only owned what you could carry or defend. There is no natural right to property. When you buy property or land you are entering in an agreement with the United States as well as the person you buy the property from. As it is the state that enforces and provides your property rights.

You have a very bad understanding of what our government is supposed to do. It is not to govern us. It is to be governed by us to ensure our rights are upheld. It does not give us rights, it upholds our rights that we already have and which cannot be taken from us. Not by a government or by a customer who wants to buy our property against our will.

The state is run by the people and the property rights are determined by the people. If you disagree with the property rights as they are change them. No one is stopping you from trying to get people together and vote a certain way with regards to property rights.

Property rights were established with the Constitution and that is what I am going with. You have rights to property that you purchase and that right cannot be taken from you. Not by the State or by the Federal Government. If they do try to, they are wrong. They do not own us. We own them.

If by tyranny you mean an oppressive power over an individual by the government. This hardly fits the bill. The only oppression going on is the state refusing to allow someone else to oppress.

I mean that a person is being forced to sell their property to someone they do not desire to sell to.

I mean let's really think about the ramifications of what you are putting out here.

Let's hypothetically say I am black and lets say that all the hospitals in the the area are owned by white people. They have a policy to deny service to all black people after all that is their property right that you have proposed. Now lets say that I get into an accident and need immediate medical treatment. The nature of the accident is that it is a very easy to mend but if left untreated would put my life in peril. I go to all the hospitals in my area and they all refuse service because I am black.

There is no right to medical care.

That my friend is the definition of tyranny. Tyranny isn't always the government using an oppressive force sometimes its the people. In this case it's just a wedding cake and no one's life is in threat of danger. But where do we draw the line? Can a hospital refuse service to homosexuals?

Well gays are already banned from giving blood or plasma. So you ask yourself that question. The highlighted portion furthers my argument. No one's life is threatened by the owner refusing to make a cake for someone they do not want to. No crime is committed. The customer has the right to seek service elsewhere, just not at this particular establishment, because the cake owner doesn't want to sell.

And this is more to the point as the religious hospitals are slowly becoming the majority. In certain parts of Washington state this is becoming an issue because within the next few years half of all of Washington's hospitals will be Catholic run.

Is it their religious right and property right to deny service to homosexuals? Prevent contraception from being dispensed? What if all the local hospitals in your area are religious do they have the property and religious right to deny yours?

Yes, if the owner decides to only serve certain people that is their decision and right. They are the ones providing a service BTW, that they don't even have to provide.

After all these are PRIVATE religious institutions? When we look beyond just the bakers and delis and what have you and actually look at the ramifications it becomes absurd to say that businesses can discriminate however they please. Sure we can have some level of discrimination but there is a line we must draw at some point and at the very basic we shouldn't discriminate based on Skin, creed, gender, and orientation. If you don't want to serve these people don't open your doors to public accommodation.

Starting a business should not be a requirement to serve everyone. The business owner has the right to make a business for anyone that they want. Dianiad has already given many examples of businesses that cater to specific groups of people, yet no one really cares about them.

The line that you want to draw is one that requires any business to serve everyone even if it is against their will. You undermine basic property rights that are innate and inalienable (non-negotiable) and want to force people do things against their will with their own property.

[Nickman]

Nick, I think you are framing the issue incorrectly. You are correct that the customer in the grocery store has no right to the property, until he purchases it. But the vendor cannot deny him the right to purchase based on the customer belonging to a "suspect class." You can argue against this of course, but you cannot meaningfully argue that, that IS the law.

And the current law is in violation of the supreme law of the land...The Constitution. The word suspect is meaningless here. The vendor does not have to think of anyone as suspect, but if they did, that would further their case against selling. The right comes down to the decision of the property owner. They are not obligated under Constitutional Law, prior to the 14th Amendment, to sell anything to anyone.

By the way, there is, or was another form of right to real property that is closer to what you are suggesting or hoping for:

Allodial title: 'Real property that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodium is "Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof."'
I doubt there is any place where such title still exist, if it ever did. The feudal Lord could always ignore such titles if his army was powerful enough.

A person who has paid outright for their property is the superior landlord and no one is above them when it comes to that property. Not a lien-holder, not a mortgage company, not a loan officer, not the government. They are the sole property owner. If you argue differently then you are claiming that property rights do not exist, against everything written in our Constitution. It is not an outdated document.

Eminent domain may be abused. This is what those lawsuits are all about.
The concept is not unreasonable however. Let's take the most common example:

The gov'mint wants to build a bridge, or widen a street, or construct a dam which will flood a valley and leave homeowners literally under water. Even if both the government, the courts, and 99% of the landowners agree that it is in the public's interest to sell, and even if they want to sell, a single owner could hold the population and the gov'mint hostage by demanding millions or even billions of dollars over the value of the property.

Imagine what would happen if streets that had been laid out for one or two lanes 100 years earlier, could not be widened to serve the growing city's needs because one guy, just one guy digs in his heels and extorts unreasonable compensation.

I certainly can see how someone feels eminent domain is "wrong" or unfair, but there is no question that it is the law. All laws can be abused of course. When it comes to government my natural inclination is to be an anarchist, but of course have to accept some compromises or the entire fabric of society pulls apart and the ensuing chaos would be much worse than having some modest rule of law.

I agree on this hypothetical, but the land owner has every right to hold out until they get top dollar or an exorbitant amount. They are the ones who are inconvenienced by the forfeiture. Many people who had land long before a city even existed have been forced off their land to make room for the people who came after, and this is wrong IMO. Especially when it comes to land that is their livelihood.