SB1427: Property Rights vs. Individual Rights

[Grapeshot]

Some thoughts above in blue.

.

Deletion was a good choice.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Deletion was a good choice.

Why is that?

Because I can't have an opinion?

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Pretty much nada. And there are private organizations that will give you the equipment needed, regardless of your income status.



Who is saying a mother cannot feed her child? Or are you just spinning up so you can watch the pretty colors and stars?



Show me who, and precisely how, anyone is forcing anybody to feed their child in any way or manner.



Which Article or Amendment? (You may take it down to a specific section if you'd like to.)

And where did you come up with the criminalization of breastfeeding? What law(s) do that?

View attachment 12380

stay safe.

Tell you what. You can argue with yourself.

You said decency laws could outlaw breastfeeding didn't you?

 

[Grapeshot]

Why is that?

Because I can't have an opinion?

No - because I quoted your words and you didn't like the reply.
You respond with a personal insult. Abhorrent - not hardly.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

No - because I quoted your words and you didn't like the reply.
You respond with a personal insult. Abhorrent - not hardly.

Sorry you took it as an insult or personal attack. It was not.

I merely stated that my opinion seemed to be abhorrent to you: "inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant."

For the record I deleted my post to respond to your thoughts point by point. Not due to the nature of the post.

 

[skidmark]

Tell you what. You can argue with yourself.

You said decency laws could outlaw breastfeeding didn't you?

No. I said that indecent exposure laws may limit the manner in which a mother breast feeds her child.

I made no mention of how the case law on unintentional exposure of the male genitalia might be applied to the unintentional exposure of the female nipple. Thought I'd save that for later.

To tell you the truth I really would rather argue with myself but you keep posting stuff that IMHO cries out for a response, and then you respond to my posting. A little cognitive dissonance on your part there?

stay safe

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

No. I said that indecent exposure laws may limit the manner in which a mother breast feeds her child.

I made no mention of how the case law on unintentional exposure of the male genitalia might be applied to the unintentional exposure of the female nipple. Thought I'd save that for later.

To tell you the truth I really would rather argue with myself but you keep posting stuff that IMHO cries out for a response, and then you respond to my posting. A little cognitive dissonance on your part there?

stay safe

I was wondering when that would come up. If I have a choice between urinating in my pants and urinating in public, discretely, I will do the latter. Relieving oneself should not be criminalized either if done out of necessity and discretely.

I can throw the cognitive dissonance remark right back at you sir.......

To tell you the truth I really would rather argue with myself but you keep posting stuff that IMHO cries out for a response

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

No. I said that indecent exposure laws may limit the manner in which a mother breast feeds her child.

Actually this is what you said as a response to Utahbagpiper: Post # 24

Obviously on public property, government cannot properly presume to ban breastfeeding, even under indecency laws.

As a matter of fact they can.

the key word is ban. However, you can be right if you want to.

 

[skidmark]

What do they call it when someone takes a response out of context?

stay safe.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

What do they call it when someone takes a response out of context?

stay safe.

you should know.

it seems to happen constantly on this forum.

no need for an excuse or explanation, you can be right. It's OK.

 

[utbagpiper]

There are many restrictions on private businesses that invite the public that differ from those for you in your home: zoning, construction standards, fire prevention, seating capacity, even how many bathrooms and which way ingress/egress doors swing.

I'm more than a little tired of the suggestion that I can take my money elsewhere. I'd rather the response be, "Go into another business where you are not required to contribute to the common safety of your "guests." You may be assured my primary concern (literally and figuratively) - is safety.

It has been suggested that such Quasi-public businesses by allowed to opt out by providing such sufficient liability insurance to cover injury or death for someone so harmed by the establishment's choices. I'm not in favor of that personally, but it might make such a change easier.

I think we can draw a sharp distinction between laws that directly affect the safety of customers, employees, and even neighboring businesses, vs laws that enforce someone's moral view of how business owners should conduct their business relative to which associations they want. There is a huge difference between a law that protects life and limb vs law that protects from mild insult or offense.

Fortunately, laws that would limit discrimination against those lawfully in possession of guns can be argued to fall solidly into the category of protecting life and limb rather than merely avoiding offense.

But, forcing a baker, photographer, or the owner of a wedding chapel, reception center, or honeymoon hotel to provide services to an event he finds morally offensive is flat out unAmerican. Ditto forcing a nurse, doctor, or pharmacist to provide an elective procedure they consider a moral and mortal sin is beyond offensive.

The 1st amendment freedom of association must also include freedom from unwanted associations. If my only offense is to peacefully withdraw from or decline to enter into an unwanted association as a business owner (or a consumer), a landlord (or a potential renter), then I have committed no real offense at all.

Now, if the nation wants to more perfectly respect private property rights, I'll take my cash to where I and my gun are welcome. But to the extent I can't turn away business or even conduct I find highly offensive, I expect others will need to get over their dislike of my firearm.

Charles

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

I believe anything in law that is ambiguous has no place. It is or it is not.

I either have a right or I do not.

I abhor any definition that is: "seemingly; apparently but not really", when it comes to my rights as a property owner. I will fight it to the last.

 

[paramedic70002]

§ 32.1-370. Right to breastfeed.
A mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present, including any location where she would otherwise be allowed on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth in accordance with § 2.2-1147.1.
​

TFred

A plain reading of the law seems to say what it means and vice versa.

Therefore, a private property owner can NOT trespass the subject for breastfeeding, and would be hard pressed to find a defensible alternative reason.

Am I wrong?

 

[Grapeshot]

What do they call it when someone takes a response out of context?

stay safe.

you should know.

it seems to happen constantly on this forum.

no need for an excuse or explanation, you can be right. It's OK.

It's called a rule violation and determined by Administration/Moderator....not by a user sniping at another.

Back to the intent of the OP, if you please.

 

[TFred]

A plain reading of the law seems to say what it means and vice versa.

Therefore, a private property owner can NOT trespass the subject for breastfeeding, and would be hard pressed to find a defensible alternative reason.

Am I wrong?

Yes, back on topic...

That's exactly how I'm leaning, at least in guessing what the author(s) of the bill intend. A common thing that judges say in opinions is that they are required to interpret the law on the plain meaning of the words, unless there is some compelling reason not to.

I don't know if it is what they had in mind, but I almost see this as an attempt to add breastfeeding women to the list of protected classes - at least in Virginia, just like race, religion, disability, etc, etc, etc...

TFred

 

[TFred]

One other thing that makes this law odd is that it breaks from the standard construction, namely that laws in Virginia tell us what we cannot do. This law seems to tell us what we can do.

Perhaps they should have written it from the opposite side, saying that one cannot prohibit a woman who is lawfully present in any place from breastfeeding...

TFred

 

[OC for ME]

A cop getting kicked out of a coffee shop because he is "OCing" is different (bad) than me getting kicked out of a coffee shop for OCing (OK cuz of private property rights)?

If private property rights matter at all, to anyone, they must be held as sacred as the 1A and 2A.

Breastfeeding? Use a blanket like my wife did and cover up...problem solved.

 

[TFred]

A cop getting kicked out of a coffee shop because he is "OCing" is different (bad) than me getting kicked out of a coffee shop for OCing (OK cuz of private property rights)?

If private property rights matter at all, to anyone, they must be held as sacred as the 1A and 2A.

Breastfeeding? Use a blanket like my wife did and cover up...problem solved.

Brilliant. If only the black folks had covered themselves up with a blanket in the 60s, when they wanted to use a restroom or a water fountain, think of all the violence that could have been avoided.

:banghead:

TFred

 

[skidmark]

Brilliant. If only the black folks had covered themselves up with a blanket in the 60s, when they wanted to use a restroom or a water fountain, think of all the violence that could have been avoided.

:banghead:

TFred

Really?

:banghead:

stay safe.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Yes, back on topic...

That's exactly how I'm leaning, at least in guessing what the author(s) of the bill intend. A common thing that judges say in opinions is that they are required to interpret the law on the plain meaning of the words, unless there is some compelling reason not to.

I don't know if it is what they had in mind, but I almost see this as an attempt to add breastfeeding women to the list of protected classes - at least in Virginia, just like race, religion, disability, etc, etc, etc...

TFred

So, How do they explain changing the plain language of the 2nd Amendment?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is because they are human and inherently corrupted with power. It permeates our society from SCOTUS down to meter maids, to security guards, to LEOs, to moderators on internet forums. Power corrupts human beings, period.

Amazing how friends and contributors get a pass from said corrupted.

I wonder how many women would say breastfeeding should be criminalized while in public?

Every mammal on earth does it. It is natural. Man wants to corrupt it into something gross and nasty. Pathetic really.