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.
Your entire rant is nothing more than falsely playing the race card.
I've seen the tabloid posters like you falsely testify out of ignorance. You know people see right through that, right?
You have your hands full running your own life. Stay out of the lives of others when no ones rights have been violated.
So you were okay with slavery? Good to know. Always best that the racist is out in the open. (I doubt you'll ever understand this)
As far as government agencies yes. Everyone pays into the pie, that's what it's for.
We the people combat societies ill not government. Government isn't moral so why rely on Jim Crow when Jim Crow caused the problem in the first place?
The Civil Rights Act came after the fact. The tide had already turned because we the people made the difference, not government.
That's called mob rule. When 51 percent tell the other 49 percent what to do. How about you quit forcing people to do what you want when no ones rights have been violated.
As a whole, hopefully not. But there are plenty of republicans who are just as lost as you are, and have that same thirst for forcing their will on others, as you do.
Property rights is one of the cornerstones of our foundation. Read up on it.
Your 'Cornerstone soliloquy' is reminiscent of another's:
Quote:
During the war, when the Confederacy refused to release black U.S. soldiers in exchange for captured Confederates, Benjamin F. Butler referred to the speech, telling the Confederates that "your fabric of opposition to the Government of the United States has the right of property in man as its corner-stone."
“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” – David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World, former Professor of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business
“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” – David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World, former Professor of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Do you believe it should be legal to discriminate against a corporation wholly owned by a minority?
Can governments discriminate against a corporation owned by a black family?
& one's home or business lacks a heartbeat, but I repeat myself.
Yeah you and others keep parroting the law. I disagree with it. Simply labeling something as a business or home doesn't change the fact that both are private property.
Yeah you and others keep parroting the law. I disagree with it. Simply labeling something as a business or home doesn't change the fact that both are private property.
people like this are why jim crow was able to succeed for how long it did.
Yeah you and others keep parroting the law. I disagree with it. Simply labeling something as a business or home doesn't change the fact that both are private property.
They would be defending the Fugitive Slave Act if it was still law.
Yeah you and others keep parroting the law. I disagree with it. Simply labeling something as a business or home doesn't change the fact that both are private property.
Yup, you've made that 'one thing perfectly clear,' you don't agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Fair Housing Act of 1968. You, a few others here, both Mr. Pauls, a few other Libertarian parrots, et cetera.
You may not realize (or probably do & are still however indifferent) that you guys are not the first, historically there's a long line of folks. This guy was probably one of the first to 'make a federal case' out of it:
"In her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case today, Justice Ginsburg mentioned a 1968 precedent in which the owner of a chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina “refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration.”
"...At the time that that case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, was being decided, the majority of Americans had religious objections to interracial marriage and many preachers made the religious case for segregation. Efforts to defend the purported right of Christian schools to discriminate against African Americans greatly shaped the modern-day Religious Right.
Some folks resisted the outcomes & natural consequences of the American Civil War therefore Jim Crow laws were created to follow the 1800–1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights & civil liberties of African Americans.
During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the United States for freedmen, African Americans who had formerly been slaves, & former free blacks.
Some folks resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1875's guarantee that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in public accommodations, such as inns, public transportation, theaters, & other places of recreation.
Segregation, Jim Crow laws & 'separate but equal' dogma were about maintaining or attempting to recover rights based on white supremacy that were lost when the Confederate States of America lost the American Civil War.
In the present day? Go ahead, take a bow. Although personally, I don't think you should expect a round of applause or a standing ovation.
Well whoever owns the RV park should decide who gains admittance.
For what it's worth, if they were paying on time and didn't create a disturbance, ownership probably just penalized itself in getting rid of good reliable tenants.
I'm sure not reading 17 pages of this thread if this is the example of the material it contains. This post is incredibly ignorant.
...Yes property rights are a cornerstone but a business has to play by different rules when dealing with the public. That business wouldn't exist without the roads and infrastructure financed by the public. That very same public has the right to be treated with dignity and respect when they walk in that store no matter what color their skin might be. That's the law. Every court in the land agrees with this. People fought long and hard for those protections and rightly so. These laws were designed to protect the disadvantaged from folks like yourself who would deny those goods and services to people you find distasteful. You're a dying breed, lhc.
I agree with much of what you've said here. Apparently, laws are for other folks.
& I wholeheartedly agree it's a 'dying breed'. It's simply not life-sustaining.
Racism, bigotry, white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, hate, et cetera is unethical, however these are also, just as essentially, untrue - unreal - irrational. The framework necessary to sustain the ideas inherent to a faulty, incomplete, misguided ideology cannot be reconciled with reality. A person who chooses such a framework is constantly forced to choose between unreality & reality & apparently freely chooses to reject reality. It must be exhausting - for one thing, it’s simply not sustainable.
They would be defending the Fugitive Slave Act if it was still law.
Reality check, look around you, reality can be nice too! Although at other times? Not so much:
Quote:
On a conference call with pastors in the wake of the November 2010 elections, Barton asserted that the Bible “absolutely” condemns the estate tax as “most immoral,” and said Jesus taught against the capital gains tax and opposed the minimum wage. Barton went even further, declaring that taxation is theft and in particular that the Bible condemns progressive taxation, which he insists is “inherently un-biblical and unfair.” He echoed those themes during a three-part broadcast on limited government in January 2011, saying “Money does not belong to the government, it belongs to individuals, and to steal money from individuals through whatever government spending program is taking private property and you’re not supposed to do that.”
Would both of you like laws enacted that determine whom you must allow into your home?
A bussiness should be looked upon no differently than a home.
I take it, then, that you feel you are stepping into the Walton's home every time you enter a Walmart?
Let's examine your view, hypothetically.
The Walton family decides they do not want white Christians entering their homes, nor do they want to sell any of their goods to white Christians. Since their stores are extensions of their houses, every white person who wants to shop there must carry a card certifying that he or she is not Christian. On top of that, they are asked by an employee to deny Christ before they enter. After all, their stores are private property, akin to their homes. You wouldn't want just any stranger entering your home, would you?
Now, that would be horrible for their business, but they don't care. They have enough money to fund the most lavish lifestyles for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, and a few more generations, without any of them having to lift a finger to earn anything.
What if Apple decided they do not want to sell their products to blue-eyed people? Apple has stores, right? Since Apple's stores are treated exactly as it's homes, Apple would have the right to do so. Private property, and all that. The only explanation Apple would need is that it does not want to associate with blue-eyed people.
I suppose I could go on. I'm sure Walmart and Apple are incorporated businesses. However, since corporations are now considered people they have the same rights as individuals. They can discriminate on a whim. They don't have to just let anyone enter their homes.
What a country that would be!
Well, enough silliness...
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.
