Libertarianism on The Civil Rights Act? (wages, radical, Murray, Pennsylvania)

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

That will come as news to Citizens United.

All statutes making pot illegal are unconstitutional.

Doubtful that these fine ladies would would want to abolish the drug war laws.

Citizens United : Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by ergohead

All statutes making pot illegal are unconstitutional.

If you say so.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

If you say so.

I do!

This does not mean we're married, though.

Not by a long shot.

[irspow]

Freedom means both freedom of association and freedom of disassociation. Freedom is the absence of initiations of force or aggression.

[nr5667]

Originally Posted by ergohead

All statutes making pot illegal are unconstitutional.

Doubtful that these fine ladies would would want to abolish the drug war laws.

Citizens United : Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control.

Those statutes are perfectly constitutional until the supreme court reverses its prior ruling on the subject.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by Katiana

You need to read the book "The Help". It talks about how white people didn't like having to sit their butts on the same toilets as blacks, etc.

It's a joke that these businesses would never have discriminated w/o Jim Crow laws.

I never said that no business would have discriminated. Considering lawsuits regarding the lousy treatment of minority customers have been brought against businesses in just the past few years, many businesses absolutely would have.

However, there were plenty that would not have. A lot of businesses did violate Segregation (although usually in the more moderate Southern states as opposed to the Deep South) and a lot business owners hated having to spend extra money having to comply with Jim Crow laws. And guess what? Had they been able to treat their customers more or less equally, they would end up building a loyal black customer base, even if the owner himself was a racist (which given the time and place, would most likely be the case).

When there is a demand, a supply often follows and when it costs money to do business one way with negligible benefit, it is often phased out.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

LOL. Right. Well I will be HAPPY when I get a new car. So based on your interpretation of the constitution, I have the right to yours. Hand it over.

The right to someone else's private property is NOT covered under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", period.

She did say public not private.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I suppose you would need to ask the those who voted for the arduous process of passing a constitutional amendment.

naww you know how rowdy those people are who believe in mob rule.

[rw47]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

She did say public not private.

She's referring to a public bathroom in someone's business. It's still private property.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by nr5667

Those statutes are perfectly constitutional until the supreme court reverses its prior ruling on the subject.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the Supremes back the tavern, booze and auto insurance industry.

I never said that the Supreme Court wasn't made up of anything but fascist pigs.