"Just because you can't get someone to agree fast enough to suit you doesn't give you the legitimate authority to usurp their rights."I want to start in the middle, because, well, that statement misses in the middle. It's just two non-related statements, with a demand in the middle.
I do not agree with your demand, btw. What is that demand? That I, and by inference, the young child and her guardians, have no legitamte authority.
And what's the sandwich you place that demand in? In between "Just because you can't get someone to agree fast enough to suit you", and "their rights".
Last is first here, we must deal with that last assertion first. What rights? You assert that they have some right to ban children, to enter into a contract to ban children. Is that a right?
I do not agree there is such a right. I hold that such a ban is void before the law of Nature's God (to use the term from the Declaration of Independence).
One of society's most important roles is to protect the next generation -- even atheistic Darwinists would agree with that! We all were children once, without children who will care for us and support or social necessities -- run our sewage plants, fix the water pumps, run the hospitals and grocery stores, farm the food, doctor and nurse us in our old age? How rude -- and how ridiculous! -- it is to deny children a place in our lives.
Laws and contracts that ban children from living in this place of that are spreading poisons -- cancers to the protection and encouragement of the next generation. They are ANTI-SOCIAL.
Such laws and contracts are as void of any authority as are contracts for murder, for illegal activities, for slavery -- and for the same reasons.
Now that it is clear that such laws and contracts are anti-social and illegitimate, thus that there is no "rights" to them -- let me deal with the first part of that sandwich whcih you placed on my plate.
Should we wait and talk things over and agree all gentle-like?
LOL! In these times of all times to suggest that waiting for a polite discussed settllement while a wrong is underway is proper behaviour! Are you channeling Nancy Pelosi?
Which in no way negates a person's right to make them.
-----
They are ANTI-SOCIAL.
So imposing your own brand of socialism is the answer.....Brilliant!
---------
Such laws and contracts are as void of any authority as are contracts for murder, for illegal activities, for slavery -- and for the same reasons.
No, murder is a violation of someones right to live, there is no right to have a child.
If you believe there is such a right, then you must also advocate adoption by homosexual couples.
----
Are you channeling Nancy Pelosi?
Strike three. I never attempt to have a rational discussion with someone who:
(1)Is so irrational they cannot post a intelligible rebuttal
(2) thinks gratuitous insults contribute anything to their side of an argument, or
(3)thinks they are the sole interpreter of the intention and will of God.
-----
I bid you a final good day.
Actually, it's not clear, and it's been extensively litigated. In addition, federal law creates an exemption from discriminilization laws for seniors only housing.
The fact that you don't agree, and spin some argument against it, doesn't change those facts.