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.
If you don't like that analysis then perhaps you shouldn't have posted what I responded to. Those are your words, not mine. I take it you don't like being backed into a corner.
Let me rewrite it for you so you can understand
property owner boots interracial couple=bad and rightfully so.. property owner in Colorado boots Trump supporter=good and legal.. whats wrong with this picture?
Now again, you think it would be righteous of me to boot a tenant because they put an Obama sticker on their car? Corner?
Whats hard about it? There's nothing hard about it. It's just wrong even though legal as I said.
So you think it's wrong to make racial discrimination by publicaly protected corporate entities illegal?
I mean, if billybob's trailerpark was not Incorporated and wasn't taking advantage of all the legal protections that our government grants to corporations, then IMO you *might* be able to make a valid argument. But I'd bet my eye teeth that billybob's trailerpark IS in fact Incorporated. He wants the benefits of said government-sanctioned legal entity but doesn't want to abide by the same rules everybody else has to.
In which case I have no sympathy for him. Not even as a philosophical point.
if I stick a gun in your ribs and demand your wallet, is that an act of violence?
Now if as a landlord I violate the arbitrary standards of the Fair Housing law, the perpetrator (wearing a govt issued mask) comes and sticks his gun in my ribs and demands my money, property and/or business. Same act as the first, same violence.
Violence doesn't make a society, voluntary cooperation does.
Uh huh...keep smoking what you're smoking and it may not turn out so well for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
Sorry, NAACP has no jurisdiction here, it is privately owned.
LOL, you are showing you don't know much about NAACP. The NAACP provides social and legal services to citizens (not just black people either FWIW).
They have a wing of their organization called the "Legal Defense Fund" (LDF) whose sole purpose is providing free or nearly free legal representation to individuals in cases of suspected discrimination.
The NAACP will also refer people to the appropriate Fair Housing Commission in response to complaints about housing discrimination, which I'm sure they did for this couple.
Let me rewrite it for you so you can understand
property owner boots interracial couple=bad and rightfully so.. property owner in Colorado boots Trump supporter=good and legal.. whats wrong with this picture?
Now again, you think it would be righteous of me to boot a tenant because they put an Obama sticker on their car? Corner?
There is no corner. I think it's bad business to boot people because you don't like their views. Pretty stupid if you ask me. Hey, I may not like the fact that you support a moron but here, I'll take your money. Thanks. Now, if they were behaving like an ahole or being demeaning to staff or other customers then yep, out you go.
When the righties fail they always, without question, resort to name calling. At any rate, do I really need to spell it out for you? You can't comprehend the difference between a private residence and a business whose sole purpose is to serve the public? You really can't make that distinction on your own???
Plenty of fail here:
1. I'm not a "righty" and I haven't failed, you have.
2. Name calling? My post asked for an explanation rather than the parroting of the law. What did you do in response? You simply parroted the law.
3. There is no difference between ownership of a home or business. They are both private property. Simply calling something a business shouldn't magically change the rights of ownership.
Can you tell us why a private home should be treated differently than a private business other than the law says it does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Uh huh...keep smoking what you're smoking and it may not turn out so well for you.
Try again, I don't smoke and have nothing to do with the principles in the story
Too bad you can't answer my simple question of why it's neccesary to treat a home differently than a business.
I think everyone should take a moment and read the posts from the right wing radicals in this thread. It exposes them for the rotten bigoted people they really are. The casual way in which they bestow cruelty on their fellow man is appalling to say the least. People in this country need to wake up and acknowledge that this threat exists. They are as much of a threat to our freedoms as radical Muslims. The most disturbing aspect of this is they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are doing anything wrong.
Can you tell us why a private home should be treated differently than a private business other than the law says it does?
It's already been explained to you ad nauseam. If you didn't get it the first time you sure as f*** won't get now it if I tell you again. I think you are not understanding, not because you lack the intellect, but because you simply do not wish to acknowledge the difference since it negates your point. Therefore, you keep asking for an explanation for something you already have an explanation for in the hopes that people will tire of posting the same thing to you over and over and they'll leave the thread. You will, in turn, feel that you have earned some sort of "victory" at which point you will go about your day patting yourself on the back thinking you got one over on "them libruls". In reality it's only a victory in your mind alone. It's a common diversionary tactic.
Let's go further down the rabbit hole. Since you state that corporations that discriminate should nevertheless be eligible for taxpayer-funded government loans, suppose a corporation chooses to take that money yet discriminate in their employment practices?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Corporations should have the same rights as individuals, do you believe racists should not be able to get FHA loans?
These repeated attempts to equate corporations to personal residences are merely a diversion; a red herring. Anyway it's obvious from your response that yes, you believe citizens should be forced, by the government, to support businesses with their tax money even if that business discriminates against them. And you appear to see nothing wrong with that.
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.
