Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2015, 02:41 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,206,841 times
Reputation: 18824

Advertisements

Actually, he was absolutely correct. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

If his religion is Christianity, discrimination against blacks is well within his religious rights and can easily be justified by the texts In his holy books and texts.

Which is why I've never understood the phenomenon known as "Black Christians."

Good brainwashing I guess. Didn't get me though (thank goodness).

 
Old 04-03-2015, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,641,969 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
What is the point of dredging something up from the sixties?
To prove you can't use the Bible to justify the need to discriminate against gays any more than you can Black people.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,756,288 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7 View Post
In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/
and just look where you got your information? Anyone can say anything, anyone can hire an attorney but it takes more than that to prove this really happened. When the platiff wins the law suite, then i will believe it Oh wait: this happened a few years ago, am I not right, like maybe like close to 50 years ago? Nice try, but let's stick with what is or isn't happening today.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 03:10 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,493,436 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
and just look where you got your information? Anyone can say anything, anyone can hire an attorney but it takes more than that to prove this really happened. When the platiff wins the law suite, then i will believe it Oh wait: this happened a few years ago, am I not right, like maybe like close to 50 years ago? Nice try, but let's stick with what is or isn't happening today.
Case law is case law regardless. The whole justice system is premised upon precedent setting case law, some of which originated when there were only 13 states of the union.

Ever ask yourself where the right of Habeas-corpus originated:

The Origins of Habeas Corpus

This single piece of ANCIENT legal legerdemain is used every single day.

How about Miranda:

The Miranda rights are established - Jun 13, 1966 - HISTORY.com

I'm sure you've heard about Roe versus Wade:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

These are just a few of the older important case law precedents that have, and continue to be used to this day in courtrooms all over the nation.

The age of the law or the precedent setting case has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it's current standing if cited as example of case law relevance and jurists agree.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,211,524 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangokiwi View Post
Duh, this took place during segregation in the deep South. This is hardly 2015 Indiana, gay rights.
Duh. The exact same argument is being used to discriminate against consumers.

Refusing service based on "religious beliefs" is refusing service based on "religious beliefs" Doesn't matter what year it was.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,419,527 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Its so easy it just slaps you in the face and yet you continue to blather on.
He demolished your entire argument. On what planet is a business allowed to come and go as they please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangokiwi View Post
Duh, this took place during segregation in the deep South. This is hardly 2015 Indiana, gay rights.
Replace "black" with "gay" and the story sounds like it was ripped from today's headlines.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 05:09 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,375,883 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
IMO, a business owner, ANY business owner, has the absolute right to determine who he or she will or will not do business with.
The ABSOLUTE RIGHT!
On the other hand, a consumer, ANY consumer, has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to decide and determine where he or she will or will NOT spend his or her money.
The ABSOLUTE RIGHT!
Yes, it should be just that simple.
Tell you what, how about we say he has that right if he operates the business as himself, not a LLC, corporation, etc. If you want THOSE protections....you have to also take the other side-that you wont discriminate. Then I might argue that you have that right.

Because right now its "this business entity" vs "I"
 
Old 04-03-2015, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,892,870 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoks View Post
And the book that people cite as instructing them to deny these services is more than 2,000 years old. How is it still relevant?
Ask the people who read it. I would say it is quite relevant to 100s of millions.

We need to just eliminate protected classes entirely.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 05:59 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,740,361 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Haha, probably so. I am still curious where in the bible it says that though.
I am curious how the bible can be used for a defense too but also curious why something that happened in 1968 was posted in the year 2015 as if it was recent.
 
Old 04-03-2015, 06:05 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,847,766 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7 View Post
In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I think this person should be required to point where in their religion that says it is okay to deny a customer from their restaurant because they are black.

I am very curious where he read this in his religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
I think this Democrat is dead - the case is from 1968.
while urbanlife78 and i agree this time, it is a moot point as ultor noted, the case was heard in 1968. way to dredge up the past OP.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 AM.

© 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