Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2016, 06:42 PM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,950,357 times
Reputation: 3461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Yes the owner has a right as to who they admit into their property
The owner of a home has the right to admit or turn away folks who enter their property.

The leap in logic is deciding a corporation qualifies as a 'person' & is capable of exercising rights.

 
Old 04-06-2016, 06:45 PM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,950,357 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
You should have no right to trespass on other peoples property or the labor of others.

Are not people entitled to the rights of property and the right of association?
People have rights, including the rights of property & the right of association.

Property lacks a heartbeat.
 
Old 04-06-2016, 07:09 PM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,950,357 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Possibly a little explanation on positive rights versus negative rights is in order:

Negative Rights Versus Positive Rights | Idaho Freedom Foundation
I think it's equally (no offense intended) possible a little explanation on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in order:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

By the way, all the way back on page 6 of this now 15 page thread I asked if you would have or did oppose the Civil Rights Act. I guess I should've clarified - do you still oppose? How about it? Anyone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
forcing people to associate through threat of violence does not advance society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Long story short, you would have or did oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
 
Old 04-06-2016, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,340 posts, read 27,740,774 times
Reputation: 16131
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
WHAT year is it down there?

The couple dodged a bullet. Who the H would want to rent from that idiot?
My thought exactly! I would be competing for this couple's business, husband is in the military, stable job, stable income.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amWa4B0UlWc
 
Old 04-06-2016, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,340 posts, read 27,740,774 times
Reputation: 16131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
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 support the RV park owner's right to be a complete idiot for rejecting a potentially good tenant. He or she (the owner) deserves to be with his or her own kind.
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Houston
5,998 posts, read 3,746,116 times
Reputation: 4163
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h View Post
Obviously that is your interpretation, and completely contrary to the facts.

You would sacrifice personal freedoms in exchange for some insane herd mentallity that defines EVERYONE as being the exact same. The problem is that progressives are too busy calling everyone a racist, for every little thing, to actually care about people being color blind.

If everyone were Libertarians, we'd have fewer racial issues. The collective IQ would certainly jump 20 points.
Ask yourself, Steven...do you honestly think that anyone who advocates denying goods and services to people because they have the wrong skin color is going to have any chance whatsoever in the political arena beyond some office in a backwater hillbilly town? Be honest.
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,937,428 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I think it's equally (no offense intended) possible a little explanation on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in order:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

By the way, all the way back on page 6 of this now 15 page thread I asked if you would have or did oppose the Civil Rights Act. I guess I should've clarified - do you still oppose? How about it? Anyone?
I oppose the same sections Barry Goldwater opposed for the same reasons. I have posted Barry's explanation in the past. I favor the civil rights of all up to the point they wish to violate the natural rights of others. There should be no right to trespass on the property of others.

The Civil Rights Act did not just apply to corporations.

Corporations are made up of people many corporations consist of a single individual.
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:45 PM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,950,357 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
I oppose the same sections Barry Goldwater opposed for the same reasons. I have posted Barry's explanation in the past. I favor the civil rights of all up to the point they wish to violate the natural rights of others. There should be no right to trespass on the property of others.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 refers to public accommodations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
The Civil Rights Act did not just apply to corporations.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Corporations are made up of people many corporations consist of a single individual.
Corporations lack a heartbeat, a legal fiction incapable of exercising rights. The model was designed to avoid accountability, liability & responsibility.
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,753 posts, read 14,881,475 times
Reputation: 35590
I'm confused.

If this is a mobile home park, he can't discriminate in renting (regardless of what his mother-in-law thinks). However, he said that he's "closing down" the park, so isn't everybody SOL?
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.


 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,962 posts, read 17,939,067 times
Reputation: 10383
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
This entire rant of yours is nothing more than an attempt to rid yourself of the "bigot" label and transfer it to someone else.
Your entire rant is nothing more than falsely playing the race card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
I've seen the righties try this tactic more times than you can count. You know people see right through that, right?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
Like I said earlier, the vast majority of Americans favor laws that force businesses which serve the public to treat people equally without regard for race.
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
We establish these rules so that everyone has equal access to goods and services.
As far as government agencies yes. Everyone pays into the pie, that's what it's for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
Without that we would quickly devolve into a disfunctional society.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
I know these rules are distasteful for folks like you but you need to learn to live with what the majority wants.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
Isn't that what you righties always say? The majority rules?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie View Post
Also, this "private property" argument is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by right wing business owners who wish to deny services to people based on nothing more than skin color.
Property rights is one of the cornerstones of our foundation. Read up on it.
Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top