Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [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)
 
Old 08-22-2015, 07:49 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,305,403 times
Reputation: 16665

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1 View Post
The business does not exist because of the government the business exists despite the government it does not depend on public sanction to exist.

Should customers be investigated if they purchase products in a discriminatory manner?
Wut?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2015, 07:50 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,305,403 times
Reputation: 16665
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
The problem is many use their rights to infringe on other's rights. Who do you turn to in that case, sadly it's daddy government because you can ask five different individuals and get five different answers with their own reasoning.
How is baking a cake, selling a suit or taking a photograph and being paid to do so infringing on someone's rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 07:53 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,305,403 times
Reputation: 16665
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Armory,

I marvel at people like you. Congress and state legislatures have passed these laws prohibiting discrimination. The Supreme Court has upheld these laws and said they are constitutional.

An amendment process is open to you to use if you don't like the decision. Yet, what do and some others try to do here?

You whine that, in essence, even though your side has lost every place that it counts that you ought to still have your way.

I'd remind everyone of a speech that President Eisenhower gave once when he sent federal soldiers to compel desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. Eisenhower made it clear that even though there are laws we like and laws that we don't like, that we have to obey all the laws.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzmtkhXAno




That's all that is going on here.

Go on complaining if you don't like it. Most people and the ones that matter disagree. You're engaged in a dance of dinosaurs.
Here is the text of the speech.

"Mob Rule Cannot Be Allowed to Override the Decisions of Our Courts": President Dwight D. Eisenhower"s 1957 Address on Little Rock, Arkansas

Quote:
Good Evening, My Fellow Citizens: For a few minutes this evening I want to speak to you about the serious situation that has arisen in Little Rock. To make this talk I have come to the President’s office in the White House. I could have spoken from Rhode Island, where I have been staying recently, but I felt that, in speaking from the house of Lincoln, of Jackson and of Wilson, my words would better convey both the sadness I feel in the action I was compelled today to take and the firmness with which I intend to pursue this course until the orders of the Federal Court at Little Rock can be executed without unlawful interference.

In that city, under the leadership of demagogic extremists, disorderly mobs have deliberately prevented the carrying out of proper orders from a Federal Court. Local authorities have not eliminated that violent opposition and, under the law, I yesterday issued a Proclamation calling upon the mob to disperse.

This morning the mob again gathered in front of the Central High School of Little Rock, obviously for the purpose of again preventing the carrying out of the Court’s order relating to the admission of Negro children to that school.

Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to use its powers and authority to uphold Federal Courts, the President’s responsibility is inescapable. In accordance with that responsibility, I have today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. This became necessary when my Proclamation of yesterday was not observed, and the obstruction of justice still continues.

It is important that the reasons for my action be understood by all our citizens. As you know, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that separate public educational facilities for the races are inherently unequal and therefore compulsory school segregation laws are unconstitutional.

Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race—and with all deliberate speed.

During the past several years, many communities in our Southern States have instituted public school plans for gradual progress in the enrollment and attendance of school children of all races in order to bring themselves into compliance with the law of the land.

They thus demonstrated to the world that we are a nation in which laws, not men, are supreme.

I regret to say that this truth—the cornerstone of our liberties—was not observed in this instance.

It was my hope that this localized situation would be brought under control by city and State authorities. If the use of local police powers had been sufficient, our traditional method of leaving the problems in those hands would have been pursued. But when large gatherings of obstructionists made it impossible for the decrees of the Court to be carried out, both the law and the national interest demanded that the President take action.

Here is the sequence of events in the development of the Little Rock school case.

In May of 1955, the Little Rock School Board approved a moderate plan for the gradual desegregation of the public schools in that city. It provided that a start toward integration would be made at the present term in the high school, and that the plan would be in full operation by 1963. Here I might say that in a number of communities in Arkansas integration in the schools has already started and without violence of any kind. Now this Little Rock plan was challenged in the courts by some who believed that the period of time as proposed in the plan was too long.

The United States Court at Little Rock, which has supervisory responsibility under the law for the plan of desegregation in the public schools, dismissed the challenge, thus approving a gradual rather than an abrupt change from the existing system. The court found that the school board had acted in good faith in planning for a public school system free from racial discrimination.

Since that time, the court has on three separate occasions issued orders directing that the plan be carried out. All persons were instructed to refrain from interfering with the efforts of the school board to comply with the law.

Proper and sensible observance of the law then demanded the respectful obedience which the nation has a right to expect from all its people. This, unfortunately, has not been the case at Little Rock. Certain misguided persons, many of them imported into Little Rock by agitators, have insisted upon defying the law and have sought to bring it into disrepute. The orders of the court have thus been frustrated.

The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts, even, when necessary with all the means at the President’s command.

Unless the President did so, anarchy would result.

There would be no security for any except that which each one of us could provide for himself.

The interest of the nation in the proper fulfillment of the law’s requirements cannot yield to opposition and demonstrations by some few persons.

Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.

Now, let me make it very clear that Federal troops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities of their primary duty to preserve the peace and order of the community. Nor are the troops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the School Board and the other responsible local officials in running Central High School. The running of our school system and the maintenance of peace and order in each of our States are strictly local affairs and the Federal Government does not interfere except in a very few special cases and when requested by one of the several States. In the present case the troops are there, pursuant to law, solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of the Court.

The proper use of the powers of the Executive Branch to enforce the orders of a Federal Court is limited to extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Manifestly, such an extreme situation has been created in Little Rock. This challenge must be met and with such measures as will preserve to the people as a whole their lawfully-protected rights in a climate permitting their free and fair exercise. The overwhelming majority of our people in every section of the country are united in their respect for observance of the law—even in those cases where they may disagree with that law.

They deplore the call of extremists to violence.

The decision of the Supreme Court concerning school integration, of course, affects the South more seriously than it does other sections of the country. In that region I have many warm friends, some of them in the city of Little Rock. I have deemed it a great personal privilege to spend in our Southland tours of duty while in the military service and enjoyable recreational periods since that time.

So from intimate personal knowledge, I know that the overwhelming majority of the people in the South—including those of Arkansas and of Little Rock—are of good will, united in their efforts to preserve and respect the law even when they disagree with it.

They do not sympathize with mob rule. They, like the rest of our nation, have proved in two great wars their readiness to sacrifice for America.

A foundation of our American way of life is our national respect for law.

In the South, as elsewhere, citizens are keenly aware of the tremendous disservice that has been done to the people of Arkansas in the eyes of the nation, and that has been done to the nation in the eyes of the world.

At a time when we face grave situations abroad because of the hatred that Communism bears toward a system of government based on human rights, it would be difficult to exaggerate the harm that is being done to the prestige and influence, and indeed to the safety, of our nation and the world.

Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our whole nation. We are portrayed as a violator of those standards of conduct which the peoples of the world united to proclaim in the Charter of the United Nations. There they affirmed “faith in fundamental human rights†and “in the dignity and worth of the human person†and they did so “without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.â€

And so, with deep confidence, I call upon the citizens of the State of Arkansas to assist in bringing to an immediate end all interference with the law and its processes. If resistance to the Federal Court orders ceases at once, the further presence of Federal troops will be unnecessary and the City of Little Rock will return to its normal habits of peace and order and a blot upon the fair name and high honor of our nation in the world will be removed.

Thus will be restored the image of America and of all its parts as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good night, and thank you very much.

September 24, 1957

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 08:20 PM
 
2,068 posts, read 999,218 times
Reputation: 3641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
Businesses do not have the legal right to discriminate against customers. I suspect you already know that.
Ever seen a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 08:29 PM
 
2,068 posts, read 999,218 times
Reputation: 3641
What I do not understand is why would I, a consumer, want to give my business to someone, a business person, who I know does not like me or does not like something about me? If I sense some hostility, wouldn't I rationally decide to take my business elsewhere?

If I force someone to do business with me, by threat of lawsuit, do I think they're going to give me the "best" service?

When I feel uncomfortable in any business establishment, I leave. I go somewhere else. Surely, I can find a competitor with whom I feel more comfortable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,814,649 times
Reputation: 40166
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx View Post
Ever seen a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign?
Ever heard of the legal concept of protected class?

Hint - 'attire' is not a protected class.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/protected_class

You know, in the English language most words have multiple meanings. You have to discern the specific meaning a person intends by context. Usually, this is very easy. In the case of this conversation it is also very easy. This entire thread revolves around discrimination against a protected class.

So why are serving up some example of discrimination against a non-protected class as if it is relevant? It's not remotely relevant. Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand the difference between, say, a restaurant refusing to serve blacks/gays/women and a store that requires people to wear shoes?

Do you really not understand that difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 08:34 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,305,403 times
Reputation: 16665
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx View Post
Ever seen a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign?
Yup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 08:52 PM
 
2,068 posts, read 999,218 times
Reputation: 3641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Ever heard of the legal concept of protected class?
A "protected class"?

Ever heard of the 5th amendment, you know, the one that guarantees due process under the law, as in insuring the rights and equality of all citizens?

Ever heard of the 14th amendment, which states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws?

This thread is about some super-class of American citizens who, as a group, have more protection than regular Americans?

Who'd have thought?


...in case you failed to notice, my initial response was to a specific quote, not to the general position of this thread. Talk about obtuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 08:56 PM
 
2,068 posts, read 999,218 times
Reputation: 3641
The next time I feel like going out for a beer, I think I'll find an establishment that caters to the LGBT community. I'm certain I'll find that I, an overweight, middle-aged, white heterosexual, am made to feel welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2015, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Laguna Niguel, Orange County CA
9,807 posts, read 11,142,657 times
Reputation: 7997
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx View Post
The next time I feel like going out for a beer, I think I'll find an establishment that caters to the LGBT community. I'm certain I'll find that I, an overweight, middle-aged, white heterosexual, am made to feel welcome.
You'd be surprised. Gay people are just human beings. I wouldn't care what you are if you are a great person to befriend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > Current Events
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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