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.
That wouldn't have anything to do with an FHA loan.
No, nor should it.
“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” John F. Kennedy
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
What both JFK and TJ are declaring is man has natural rights no state should be able to take away. The right of association is one of these natural rights. Property rights is another.
How does my wish to see everyone treated with dignity and respect, no matter the color of the skin, equate to me embracing Jim Crow laws?
Your wish is backed up by your use of government force even though no ones rights have been violated. Just like Jim Crow. I want a free society where government does intervene using force one way or the other. Easy enough to out those who wish to discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
Are you nuts???
I'm not the one forcing anyones will for their own good, you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
Only the mind of a radical right wing bigot would come to a conclusion as ridiculous as that.
Only a power hungry tyrant who falsely plays the race card, would come to a conclusion as ridiculous as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
Intolerance of bigotry is not defined as "intolerance". It's called "progress".
What you propose is called forcing your beliefs on others while ignoring property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
That's what YOU should embrace if you truly love your country as indicated in your moniker.
That's what YOU should embrace if you truly love the individual and don't believe the use of force and coercion is how society progresses.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 04-06-2016 at 02:01 AM..
Yes, any contractor in a service area would have to serve everyone. Manufacturing, road building, etc. would not face this problem. Yes, if you are running a concession stand at a public facility you must serve all.
Let me also add there are cases where there is a substantial state interest in government forcing a private corporation to serve the whole of the public. An example would be emergency medical services.
I admit there are some grey areas that are subject to debate. Believe it or not even libertarians recognize this. However for most of the transactions we deal with on a daily basis government should not interfere with the natural right of association.
Life in general has many grey areas. Property rights, historically, have presented some of the 'greyist'. There is a reason why 'pursuit of happiness' replaced the third term of John Locke's trinity, 'life, liberty, & property'. For some, the 'pursuit of happiness' apparently meant creating a legal fiction in which persons could be owned as property. & let's not pretend our history is something we prefer it to be & not something that it simply is. The legal fiction that property is a person, corporate personhood, & all the grey areas that entails was also present from our Country's beginnings. It does no good to pretend that to be something we prefer it to be rather than what history reveals:
Quote:
“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it… Law is often the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual… I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
“The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
“Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters”, warned President Grover Cleveland.
Quote:
For nearly two hundred years, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that corporations were entitled to the rights of citizens under the Constitution’s “privileges and immunities” clause. In 1839, the Court said, “The only rights [a corporation] can claim are the rights which are given to it in that character, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state” (Bank of Augusta v Earle, 1839).
Fifty years later, the Court said that the term “citizens” in the Constitution “applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the state, and not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only such attributes as the legislature has prescribed” (Pembina Consolidated Mining Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1888).
Quote:
corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. – Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
Quote:
“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” – David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World, former Professor of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business
Quote:
Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of “separate but equal,” 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities.
Would both of you like laws enacted that determine whom you must allow into your home? A bussiness should be looked upon no differently than a home.
It'll be when it's really a home that means you don't open it for business to deal with "others" - is it that hard to understand? For example this $hitty owner says he is closing business now. Once he does that - I am pretty sure he can do whatever the hell he wants to do or whomever he wants to deal with.
It'll be when it's really a home that means you don't open it for business to deal with "others" - is it that hard to understand? For example this $hitty owner says he is closing business now. Once he does that - I am pretty sure he can do whatever the hell he wants to do or whomever he wants to deal with.
Yes thank you for mindlessly parroting existing law which has been done repeatedly on the thread already by other non thinking parrots.
Can you give a good reason why a private business should be treated differently than a person's home? Note this has nothing to do with racism.
Please don't roll out the "civilized society blah blah" again because extortion and cohersion do not a free society make...unless you're in a prison type environment.
I skimmed through it and I remember reading that. Just leaving the possibility open that this is a biased source that isn't bothering to report all of what the landlord said and did. It's likely that there's more going on than what they're actually reporting. It just seems there's gotta be more to it. These days, it seems like most people know better than to set themselves up for racial discrimination lawsuits like that.
Like I said, if this is purely a mixed race couple discrimination case, then the landlord is gonna lose that lawsuit in a very bad way.
Your wish is backed up by your use of government force even though no ones rights have been violated. Just like Jim Crow. I want a free society where government does intervene using force one way or the other. Easy enough to out those who wish to discriminate.
I'm not the one forcing anyones will for their own good, you are.
Only a power hungry tyrant who falsely plays the race card, would come to a conclusion as ridiculous as that.
What you propose is called forcing your beliefs on others while ignoring property rights.
That's what YOU should embrace if you truly love the individual and don't believe the use of force and coercion is how society progresses.
This entire rant of yours is nothing more than an attempt to rid yourself of the "bigot" label and transfer it to someone else. I've seen the righties try this tactic more times than you can count. You know people see right through that, right?
Like I said earlier, the vast majority of Americans favor laws that force businesses which serve the public to treat people equally without regard for race. We establish these rules so that everyone has equal access to goods and services. Without that we would quickly devolve into a disfunctional society.
I know these rules are distasteful for folks like you but you need to learn to live with what the majority wants. Isn't that what you righties always say? The majority rules? Also, this "private property" argument is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by right wing business owners who wish to deny services to people based on nothing more than skin color.
Yes thank you for mindlessly parroting existing law which has been done repeatedly on the thread already by other non thinking parrots.
Can you give a good reason why a private business should be treated differently than a person's home? Note this has nothing to do with racism.
Please don't roll out the "civilized society blah blah" again because extortion and cohersion do not a free society make...unless you're in a prison type environment.
Do you offer goods and services to the public out of your private home?
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.
