LGBT Civil Rights

"Sorry guy, can"t make up your own things. Right to lawyer, is Miranda!" - Yeah, It is a civil right. Like I said. Miranda is a civil right. "you further state " Natural rights are things such as self ownership, with or without a state you have the right to self ownership." What a pant load! Just makin it up as you go huh? Natural rights are also made up. There WERE no rights save survival of the fittest! Whichh ruled on through the old west! So what "Natural Laws" you getting at?" - Now I can tell you didn't watch this videos explaining natural law. You heard the name, natural law has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. But allow me to explain natural law from first principles of logic. 1.The Principle of Non-contradiction. This is the first principle of all logic and reason, and it is as it sounds. Claims cannot contradict themselves. If a posit contradict itself, it must be rejected as it is false. 2.The Consistency Principle. This is an extension of the principle of non-contradiction. If inconsistency is found in a posit, it must be rejected. Moreover if two things are true dichotomy, and one is falsified the other must be true. Here is an example and reinforcement for this principle. Take these two claims "Consistency is preferable" - "Consistency is not preferable," If consistency is not preferable, it is not preferable to consistently apply that posit, therefor consistency must be preferable. 3.Burden of proof is on the active side, not the passive side. If the burden of proof is on the passive side, then the passive side must justify everything they are not doing, which is impossible, since that posit is false, the other must be true. Therefor burden of proof is on the active side. 4.You own yourself. Otherwise, who gets to own you? If you are not endowed with self-ownership then how can you even justify your own existence? If only some people have self-ownership, how, and why? The posit of "You do not own yourself" is inconsistent and false. Therefor, you own yourself 5.You own the results of your actions, and the fruits of your labor. Otherwise, who gets to own those? The posit that you do not own the results of your actions and the fruits of your labor is false, therefor you own the fruits of your labor, and results your actions. 6.Thereby, any violation of these property rights are not justified, and this is where we get the non-aggression principle. Unless you can find a flaw within this chain of logic, then property rights/natural law do exist, undeniably so. "Argumentum ignoramus- That YOU have "NOT" found God IS your problem pal! I have looked I speak from knowledgeable authority and as a witness to the same! My responsibilitiy has been accomplished, that yours hasn't doesn't make it unproven to anyone BUT to the persons having FAILED TO LOOK!" - Shifting the burden of proof. Also, that isn't an argumentum ad ignorantiam. the argument from ignorance is used to support a posit. Of which, I've made no posit only rejected your (Totally bogus) posit of there being a God. "2.2 Billion people on the Earth today HAVE found God! The rest are still looking except you walkin Dead of course! Case is closed ... your "not looking" doesn't count as reputable nor fact!" - Argumentum ad populum. Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is true. "That having been said. Ignore what you want, you appear to be relying on the opinions of everyone else ... that's your mistake. There was a time I trusted only me now I don't even trust ME I trust God ONLY!? He is the only one who tells truth ALL the time!" - Personally I worship the giant spaghetti monster. ;D "Listen to you. You don"t HAVE any argument Do You?" - I don't need one. I just must prove your arguments false, as you are the one attempting to use force. "You Further just capitulated that nothing wrong so long as they don"t violate other"s Rights " BINGO My right to make them a Marriage cake got trashed. I lost my Right because of the degenrates LGBT My right to serve in my place of business, also went down the tubes " that"s 2 rights the LGBT have trashed!" - I AGREE WITH YOU HERE! :D The government should not force you to serve LGBT people. However, if you do not want your kids to seem something, it is your responsibility to shield them from it. "So much for your complaining? When you kid comes home not knowing whether he"s a girl or a boy BECAUSE their teaching children their trash, you"re gonna be in a World of hurt, because instead of speaking up, you just through out Big Words while you were busy being brain dead!" - The likely hood of that happening is extremely low (in fact I've never met a transgender person in my whole life, that is how rare they are) That is nothing more than a preference, not a moral law. "I"ll stop you right there philosophers don"t MAKE laws, You have "YET" to demonstrate you even KNOW logic and reason!" - Of course they don't, law makers do. However they do discover moral/ethical laws. Also, nice classic argumentum ad hominem. Attacking me personally really does not help your case. "I have given 3 VERY REAL RIGHTS in the News no less that were removed from the population over these degenerates? Don"t think the laws DON"T apply to you and yours? YOU now no longer HAVE the right to refuse services to these "Disgusting individuals" Harsh? Perhaps, but look at what"s been ALLOWED to happen because people refuse to speak out? Things are THIS BAD just since the Supreme Court failed us ALL, by politicizing their responsibilities and moral standing? Where will we be in another year of ignoring the consequences of maintaining a responsible civility among the peoples of the Nation? Will we HAVE another year?" - I agree! We should be able to refuse service to them. However, they should still have the right to get married, and use PUBLIC domain. "Have you actually considered the results of a nuclear War and its ramifications?" - Yes, it is part of the reason why I'm an Anarchist. Governments and their arms are the biggest danger to humanity. "Best you start, cause emp kills all electrical systems for years, not days. No electrical grid, no water cause the pumps no longer work. No trash pickups, because all cars are fried electrical systems, No phones anymore, No food delivered to the Markets, what you have is what you WILL have till, the gangs of sinners, who have no problem with taking what"s YOURS, comes for you? Oh and that Natural Law your talking about " returns to Survival of the fittest. And your guns all but useless against a gang of thirty equally armed hooligans who have ONE THING on their mind your women and your Food!" - Argumentum ad baculum. Making indirect threats such as that are....Not an argument :D Also, to prove natural law wrong, you must prove the logic behind it to be wrong. Until then, natural law is valid.