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.
So you don't believe in free speech. Thank you for clarifying that. I'll give you some credit, at least you know where you stand.
OK play your little game. Free speech can not and has never been 100% free and you know it. Let the racist put up all the signs they want to. At least when the working class and poor finally do revolt some targets are easily identified.
OK play your little game. Free speech can not and has never been 100% free and you know it. Let the racist put up all the signs they want to. At least when the working class and poor finally do revolt some targets are easily identified.
So we agree. But I don't know what this has to do with the working class and poor.
I got in on this discussion/debate well into the second-half of the ballgame, so I will just post my two-cents worth (which is likely all it IS worth! LOL) as a summary of sorts....
I agree with what many others have said in one form or fashion. Yep, if "you" own the property, put up the money, take the risks, then you should have the right to hire, fire, serve, etc, according to your own values and/or judgement as to what is felt best. The said decision might be stupid, hateful, repugnant, appalling, whatever...but in a free society (predicated upon private property rights and freedom of association), such a right far outweighs that of "government" to mandate otherwise.
On a personal note? Why in the hell would it bother me if a place said "No Whites Allowed? (far as that goes, I can show anyone places in my hometown where white people enter at their own risk, anyway...best to have it upfront). Likewise, if some business posted a sign that said "No Blacks need Apply", then I would just figure some idiot owned the place and took the risk of not only not making a living, but marking themselves for deserved boycotts, ostrasism, etc (which are perfectly legitimate free-market retaliation).
Regardless, it ought to be the right of the business owner to make the said decision and reap the reward and/or consequence, as may be. That goes for all combinations and colors...
OK play your little game. Free speech can not and has never been 100% free and you know it. Let the racist put up all the signs they want to. At least when the working class and poor finally do revolt some targets are easily identified.
I am not really trying to be a smartass, but this "poor and working-class revolt" line went out with the hey-day of the Marxist dupes. Believe it or not, other than the perpetual losers and welfare-dependent created by the left? The real "poor and working class" folks of the present status have no interest in the class-envy crap. Instead, most of the same are young folks starting out, and will be in the middle/upper class in another 20 years. At which point, of course, those of your ideology will want to tax their success...
As to your sign thing earlier? I agree with those who said, hey, your private property, your sign...
OK play your little game. Free speech can not and has never been 100% free and you know it. Let the racist put up all the signs they want to. At least when the working class and poor finally do revolt some targets are easily identified.
I'm for property rights! I think signs extend past that. For instance what if the sign read "all child molesters are Gods gift to children" would you think that would be alright. Its on the person on property after all.
Who cares if some idiot wants to glorify child molesters? It's his land, his right. I don't have to like it but it's their right. If you don't have the freedom to say controversial things then you're really not free. You seem to be fine without freedom of speech but some of us like our freedoms.
Should I be allowed to buy a billboard and post the following
Republicans want you and your kids dead. Please protect yourself by killing them first.
Is that not free speech? I hope that would not be allowed to be displayed in public.
This has been addressed. If it is your private property (operative term)? Then why not? The alternative is that "government" be vested with the power to limit your first ammendment rights.
But ok, I see where your argument is going. That is, with the "killing" wording. Sorry, the analogy does not hold up because, even on private property, there are laws against the first ammendment being used as cover to incite a riot, make terroristic threats, commit assault by threat, etc.
I voted no just as fast as the one asked about black people. I acknowledge if its private its not subject to every public law but that doesn't make it morally right. We're the same nationality technically speaking. I'm kind of surprised that 56% voted yes.
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.
