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.
I don't have to do anything. I pointed out that certain laws are stupid, enacted dishonestly with ulterior motives, and the show stopper unconstitutional. Or maybe the worst thing is diversity are the worst violators of the law.
Well, I guess all you can do is to stomp your feet and throw hissy fits. The 1964 and 1965 CRAs have been affirmed as constitutional for the last 50+ years.
Oh, maybe you should learn to use proper diction ("Diversity are the worst violators of the law?"). I thought nativists were all about using (proper)English.
No, I have never defended racism. Please show me where I have defended racism.
I defend freedom and that includes the freedom to do stupid things like choosing your customers based on skin color.
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.
Well, I guess all you can do is to stomp your feet and throw hissy fits. The 1964 and 1965 CRAs have been affirmed as constitutional for the last 50+ years.
Oh, maybe you should learn to use proper diction ("Diversity are the worst violators of the law?"). I thought nativists were all about using (proper)English.
Shows what you know then. I don't care if someone writes informally or makes occasional errors in English. Just don't speak in butchered English or worse yell in an awful sounding foreign language would suffice.
Diversity better start following the very laws more closely it supposedly supports.
Show what you know then. I don't care if someone writes informally or makes errors in English. Just don't speak in butchered English or worse yell in an awful sounding foreign language would suffice.
Looks like you got double standards - you demand others speak in proper English but you can't do the same for yourself. You just got hoisted on your own petard. That's from Shakespeare's Hamlet, by the way.
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.
I value property rights over the right to shop with only a few exceptions such as medical emergency services.
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.
Looks like you got double standards - you demand others speak in proper English but you can't do the same for yourself. You just got hoisted on your own petard. That's from Shakespeare's Hamlet, by the way.
Looks like you imagine things and make things up about others.
Shows what you know then. I don't care if someone writes informally or makes occasional errors in English. Just don't speak in butchered English or worse yell in an awful sounding foreign language would suffice.
Diversity better start following the very laws more closely it supposedly supports.
You said you hated walking down the street and hearing people speak Spanish.
I don’t believe that this is a property rights issue. Denial of service based on reasons related to a protected class enters into a legal liability issue.
I sides with the baker when they wouldn’t bake for a gay wedding. LGBT aren’t a protected class. Was it tacky, tasteless, wrongheaded? Yup. But not illegal.
Here though, that’s a different story.
Being in an interracial marriage, I have really seen it take off most especially in the last few years. The stares we used to get are almost completely gone as the novelty wears off.
I don’t believe that this is a property rights issue. Denial of service based on reasons related to a protected class enters into a legal liability issue.
I sides with the baker when they wouldn’t bake for a gay wedding. LGBT aren’t a protected class. Was it tacky, tasteless, wrongheaded? Yup. But not illegal.
Here though, that’s a different story.
Being in an interracial marriage, I have really seen it take off most especially in the last few years. The stares we used to get are almost completely gone as the novelty wears off.
It’s definitely a property rights issue. How is it not?
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.
