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.
It was challenged and that was basically the answer "commerce clause".
Honestly, the CRA is just a tip of the iceberg of the real problem of government policy turning America from what is was into something in between Brazil and china.
Oh puhleez. Spare us the hyperbole. 1956 isn't coming back, Orval Faubus.
Here's a link from the Cato Institute, hardly a left-leaning organization - stating that immigrants use far less social services and entitlements than native born citizens: https://www.cato.org/publications/co...-welfare-state
Here's a link from the Cato Institute, hardly a left-leaning organization - stating that immigrants use far less social services and entitlements than native born citizens: https://www.cato.org/publications/co...-welfare-state
The problem with your position is that discrimination isn't just an exercise OF freedom, it is also an exercise AGAINST freedom. For instance, in this case the venue owner was exercising her own freedom by denying an interracial couple the use of her venue, but she was also acting against the freedom of the interracial couple. Now, the argument becomes that the interracial couple can simply find another venue. And that is true, they can try to find another venue, but it won't be in Booneville, because she's the only venue in town. And that can impact their celebration. Maybe some of their guests cannot travel 50 or 100 miles away to another venue. Maybe the couple cannot do that, maybe one of them has to work or take care of a family member. The civil rights laws that prohibit racial discrimination, and other discrimination, aren't about taking away the rights of people like the venue owners. The civil rights laws are about balancing the freedom of one group against the freedom of another. Legally, you are prohibited from shooting someone else because they tick you off. Your freedom to do something to another person is balanced by law against the freedom of the other person to live.
Sometimes the balancing of freedoms seems to some people to go overboard. Like baking cakes. But the law is a framework, it is up to judges to navigate that framework. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded, and why the justice system is an adversarial system, with two sides arguing their point of view.
Why aren't we enfircing that everywhete?
Why do we not have small people on NBA courts or handicapped people taking snaps?
Maybe if more than one person has commented about your words - perhaps your interpretation is wrong. Did you ever consider that, as opposed to being obstinate?
The law is pretty much crystal clear about public accommodations. I hope that you aren't a lawyer.
The only interpretation of the law I have given is if I tell you to leave my business you need to leave. I do not need to give you a reason and if I want to I can tell you it's because you have funny haircut or any other stupid reason.
My opinion is if I want to ask you to leave for any possible reason I should be able to do that.
Once again, you cannot argue my opinion of the law is wrong because it does not conform with the law. the mere existence of a law does not make it right or wrong.
Yeah well you can't. A landlord cannot deny someone due to race or other reasons. A bank may not. A taxi may not. A pubic business may not.
So yeah- wrong.
Why is it so many of you have a problem separating an opinion of the law from the law? If there is road near you posted at 65 and you offer the opinion it should 75 you can't be wrong because it's posted at 65.
The only interpretation of the law I have given is if I tell you to leave my business you need to leave. I do not need to give you a reason and if I want to I can tell you it's because you have funny haircut or any other stupid reason.
My opinion is if I want to ask you to leave for any possible reason I should be able to do that.
Once again, you cannot argue my opinion of the law is wrong because it does not conform with the law. the mere existence of a law does not make it right or wrong.
I wonder if a couple hundred years ago they'd be arguing, "Of course slavery is justified, it's the law afterall."
Why is it so many of you have a problem separating an opinion of the law from the law? If there is road near you posted at 65 and you offer the opinion it should 75 you can't be wrong because it's posted at 65.
So just how far does religious belief go when it comes to the laws of this country?
Venue owner found out that the couple were not of the same race and denied rental of the venue citing her "Christian race, er Christian beliefs".
I was saying that when businesses were told that they could use "religious belief" to refuse service to gays that it would open the door to racists to do the same. Seems that I was right. Either religious belief trumps any and all laws or it doesn't.
Where in the bible does it say anything about the mandate from god for worshipers to maintain racial purity?
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.