Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously guy, you're ACTUALLY arguing with a lot of well settled jurisprudence when you gripe about public accommodations and the types of restrictions that can be put on same.
Lols.
So????
Do you agree with everything because some nimrod in D.C. tells you they know better?
Why should a person give up rights becasue they own a business?
Were is that allowed in the Constitution?
I wish someone could answer the question with a sound reason.
"The government says so" is a sorry excuse. Sheeple are the kinda people politicians love.
If the government set up a *ock sucking zone would you suck *ock every time you went thru there? I mean, it's the law. You shall never question the wisdom of government jurisprudence.
It is indeed a behavior! It is something you
can choose to act upon or
not choose! As a married man, I still like
women....beautiful women! Women
I would like to have sex with!! But guess
what!!?? I don't act upon
that attraction because it's WRONG!! Sin creeps
at everybody's
door.....whispering to them to do what you feel. But we are
not a slave to our base intsincts !
Here's the thing, though......as a married man, you have access to sex. You got yours, so it's no big deal to deny others? You want gays to not act on their "baser instincts", so you want them to be celibate. Would YOU be OK with leading a celibate lifestyle? I think not.
Congress can throw out Supreme Court rulings if they want to.
Again, I'm not saying it's not the law.
I'm asking why it is okay with people to violate rights as long as the person owns a business.
Where is it in the Constitution that says that government will recognize private property unless the property has a business on it???????
Do you doubt that in this magical place called "civilization," the rights of people will often conflict, and that sometimes, the rights of one person being restricted is far more justified (or burdensome) than the rights of another class of people being discriminated.
In this case, business owner rights do not trump the right of the individual to be discriminated based on innate characteristics.
Maybe you should actually go read some of the opinions and case law on "public accommodation" and discrimination cases to learn how these issues were/are worked out by the justices.
Oh, and as far as "Congress throwing out Supreme Court rulings...." good luck:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
So they'd actually have to overturn what they already decided.... 50 years ago.... was a good thing due to the pervasive discrimination at the time.
I'm wanting to know why people think they have ti right to violate private property rights by calling something a "public accomodation."
I mean, I could just call your house a 'public accomodation" and you have to run it the way the state requires.
Why is it okay for the customer to discriminate and not the owner? Why does the owner give up rights when all he wants to do is make some money?
The baker is entitled to private property rights and retains those until.... He amends that private property right in opening his business to the public. He can no longer claim that exclusionary right for some and not others.
He can, on the other hand, be totally private and a bakery...such as Hostess. Hostess bakery is a private company and can keep all out.
If Hostess opens its shop to sell "seconds" to the public, by doing so, aHostess could not restrict which of the public could come in and buy. All or None.
The baker is entitled to private property rights and retains those until.... He amends that private property right in opening his business to the public. He can no longer claim that exclusionary right for some and not others.
He can, on the other hand, be totally private and a bakery...such as Hostess. Hostess bakery is a private company and can keep all out.
If Hostess opens its shop to sell "seconds" to the public, by doing so, aHostess could not restrict which of the public could come in and buy. All or None.
By opening their business to the general public, they are no longer a private property, but a public accommodation.
Not to mention if they have a LLC the business is a legal entity, it has no religion.
Thats just some term a lawyer made up.
If a private citizen buys property it is private property. Doesn't matter if they open a business or not.
Anyway, it's all good. Call it a publik accomodation.
That still doesn't answer the question.
Why is it okay for some people to legally discriminate and not others?
If I hate Chinese people and I decide to discriminate by not frequenting a Chinese owned business then what law did I violate? If the same Chinese businessmen refuses to sell me his product because he hates white folk then he violates the law?
Liberals are always talking about "fairness." How is this fair? If I can discriminate then why can't the Chinaman?
There is no way anyone can answer the question without admitting they have no problem denying a right to someone. So I get "public accomodation" and "it's the law" nonsense.
Typical of the sheeple.
Last edited by OhioRules; 06-03-2013 at 03:42 PM..
If a private citizen buys property it is private property. Doesn't matter if they open a business or not.
Anyway, it's all good. Call it a publik accomodation.
That still doesn't answer the question.
Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
Why is it okay for some people to legally discriminate and not others?
Why must a restaurant kitchen pass health inspection codes and be subject to inspection, but the government doesn't go into that same restaurant owner's private home to inspect his kitchen?
Think critically. Take all the time you need. No need to rush.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
