"LAWS are made with the intention of control...control of society...keeping check on certain actions"
Again, I contend that laws are a reflection of a society and people and cannot force people to change they way they are. By forcing a segregated bar to de-segregate, the law is ostensibly trying to dictate a business owners behavior. We have laws against actions that cause direct harm to the people because society deems murder, robbing, and rape are abhorrent. But without these laws, it would still be abhorrent; we do not need a law against murder to know murder is wrong.
"but you can compel someone to treat their fellow human being with dignity and respect when you have a public venue that caters to the society at large....difference in the actus rea( action of mind) VS mens rea( thought of the mind) as we say in legal terminology."
We do have laws that attempt to punish people that don't act respectfully. But I do not feel that I (or a society) has the right to force someone who has disrespected me to change their ways and start respecting me. If they cause me no direct harm, then I do not believe I have any recourse to force them to change their ways. I believe someone has the right to be disrespectful, to use racial slang, to fly a Confederate flag if they so chose. I do not like it, I do not think it's right, but I cannot selectively choose to defend some people and not others.
"as for your argument of nudity pornography drunkenness.marijuana..these are strictly laws of moral turpitude and are victimlesss and I AGREE there are natural laws that lets one know you should you *** rob kill or steal however when you murder rape and steal theres a victim...so society dicitates that laws must be crafted to act to protect society as a whole"
I agree that these are victimless crimes (sans something like driving while intoxicated, of course). I believe people have the right to put in their body whatever they so choose, to legally pay for *** if it's a mutual agreement (funny how we deem prostitution illegal but if we film it and call it pornography, its okay), etc, but other people deem this immoral and attempt to outlaw these things (the vast majority of politicians for the past several decades specifically).
However, laws outlawing such behavior do have victims. Prohibition caused such a spike in the black market for alcohol and spawned so many gangsters and organized crime, that we repealed it. The War on Drugs is equally harmful, empowering the drug cartels and causing so much death and wasted money fighting them and a disproportionate amount of minorities to be imprisoned (yet again, our politicians do nothing to prevent this). It is interesting that we treat dope users as Federal prisoners, yet murder reserved to the states. And as mentioned before, I do agree that law should correctly dole out punishment, I'm just saying that law itself doesn't tells us that murder is wrong, that people already know its wrong and the law reflects the punishment.
Society must be protected, but it *** come at the cost of violating someone's individual rights. As mentioned before, 99 out of 100 people cannot infringe on the rights of the one, no matter how racist or prejudicial they are.
"under your argument ...cause I cant control someones mindset of wanting to kill a person cause they are black and *** that justifies me not crafting hate crimes laws...so again you can be racist..you can hate people"different" all you like....thats LEGAL...you just cant act and cause me harm based on those thoughts...."
No, this is not what I'm arguing. People are free to do as they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Obviously you cannot go out and kill someone. But by refusing to serve someone a beer at a bar, you are not causing them harm. What exactly is a hate crime? Isn't murder in all its form a hate crime? Why should it be treated differently?
"As for doctors you mentioned above.....doctors have a Hippocratic oath they have to follow.....and IF they knowingly cause harm they are immediately open to sanction....."
They do have the Hippocratic Oath, but the oath is not legally binding. I agree if a doctor (or anyone) knowingly causes someone harm, then they should be punished. And as mentioned before, one could make the argument that by knowingly and willingly refusing to help someone in a life or death situation, they can be held accountable. Many states do have the 'Good Samaritan' law that reflects this, but that is up to the states.
"I dont know why this is so hard to understand...the premise is really quite simple...and in Pauls view especially as a doctor he should know better "
Heheh, I feel the same way! I do believe we share much the same outlook, but I feel compelled to defend someone's private property. A business should be run how they see fit, but must face the punishment. What if Wal-Mart or Apple or another big company overtly practiced racist and sexist work practices? There are laws against this. But These companies overtly and rigorously go out of their way to have a diverse work environment, not because of a law and a fine, but it would be a public relations *** and harm their profits, doing more harm than any fine would.
And in Paul's defense, he never refused anyone his service. There's a case specifically that produced a commercial about a black man in then segregated Texas whose white wife was in labor and a hospital refused to deliver for them. Dr. Paul did deliver his baby and charged them nothing. He is a staunch advocate of life and very principled and something I greatly admire. As a doctor too, he refused government healthcare based on principle; if a patient couldn't pay with Medicare or Medicaid, he treated them anyways.
I appreciate your time in responding. So many people refuse to even open up to other lines of thought.