Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
But that just ain't how this country rolls.
Not since 2008.
Please expound.The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.
The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.
But that just ain't how this country rolls.
Not since 2008.
Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.
Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I haven't quite given up on this one yet.
Well you should move to a country where that's allowed then. Like Iran or Sudan.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I haven't quite given up on this one yet.
Don't let the door hit you . . . .
And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?
And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?
You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?
You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.
So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.
A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?
You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.
So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.
A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.
I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?
You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.
So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.
That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
Freedom of association;A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.I thought you didn't think that applied across the board. Things like food, housing, fuel, etc. you felt discrimination should not be allowed. Did I misunderstand you?
You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.
So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.
That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
Freedom of association;A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.You must have. Personally, I have no use for racists or bigots. But trying to use government to ensure we all treat each other equally is, ironically, incompatible with equal protection under the law.
My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.
So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.
That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;
In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
Freedom of association;A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.My mistake. I get people mixed up sometimes.
So, if I understand you, you think a grocery store should be able to refuse to sell food to someone because they are a Jew, for example?
And it is not incompatible with equal protection. That just means you can't apply the laws one way for one group and another way for another group. Even that is not an absolute.
That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;
In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
Freedom of association;A grocery store owner would be stupid to turn down money from anyone for any reason, but should be free to do so.
That's how I see it. I always wonder how this precedent gels with people who like to express their political values via their economic choices. I know as a web developer, I won't do sites for customers that want something I consider trash, or below my integrity threshold. I don't want to see government telling me when I can, or can't, refuse to do work I'm not comfortable with.
Ok. What is the basis for considering this to be a fundamental human right.
Freedom of Religion;
Freedom of speech; Refusing to speak to someone is protected too.
Right to pursue happiness;
In fact if I didn't have to worry about paying the rent I might set up a situation on purpose where my choice to not speak to a fag/black guy/etc is protected by my right to free speech. Because non-speech is also speech.
Freedom of association is not in the Constitution, nor is happiness mentioned.
Do you believe those rights to be absolute or are they balanced by the ability of the community to protect itself?
It's based on inalienable rights, so you might as well turn back now.