Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Liberals need the Civil Rights Act (which is now moot) as a reminder in their minds of how "bad and evil" America is. Liberal history begins in 1964. They hate the generation that won WWII. They can't accept that a segregated society would defeat Nazism. Ruins the victory for them. So Civil Rights Movement, that they want to fight over and over and over and over again...only divides America. Give the young generation a chance to grow without your liberal hatred.

Are you prouder that Nazis were defeated or that it was done by a segregationist society?

Keep twisting in the wind. How could Liberals (who established the Civil Rights Act) be full of hate while Conservatives (who opposed the Civil Rights Act) want to repeal it?

Why are Conservatives hell bent to erode Civil Rights? Is it because they want to bank the fires of discrimination because discrimination appeals so much for them? Who are the haters here?

you have it exactly backwards


I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

Civilians..................

If your business is open to the public, it has to be...get ready for it...OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!!!

Only a Conservatives sees discrimination as a form of freedom.

Only self-appointed, leftist hall monitors fail to recognize that ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.

 

[dblack]

As far as your example of the above.....YES, even if you disagree with racial activists, if they are coming in to your diner for food, you are to treat them like anyone else...you serve them what they are paying for in the same timely manner that you serve everyone else. Do you have to chit chat with them or even smile at them, NO, OF COURSE NOT....they are not paying for a smile and chit chat...they are paying for a service, and you are required to give them what they paid for...just like everyone else that buys from you.

Right, that's exactly the corner this notion that "business operators must treat everyone equally" paints us into. And as a general principle, it's a really bad solution. Why shouldn't we extend this same principle to consumer choices? If I refuse to shop at store because it's owned by Koreans, haven't I committed exactly the same wrong? What if I organize a boycott?

 

[konradv]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

You make language and conduct rules that apply to everyone, akin to "No shirt, no shoes , no service" signs. You don't keep all of a certain class out. That's the very definition of prejudice and what the law's supposed to stop. While I don't doubt you'd treat everyone fairly, this law is in place because of those who won't.

I'm not clear what you're saying here. Should I be allowed to refuse service to the racists?

How do you know they're racists? They must have said or done something. The Civil Rights Act isn't about barring individuals for bad behavior, but not allowing businesses to bar entire classes of people without their doing anything that disturbs the peace. Making bad language or offensive actions a reason for refusal of service, has always been a business person's right.

 

[dblack]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

You make language and conduct rules that apply to everyone, akin to "No shirt, no shoes , no service" signs. You don't keep all of a certain class out. That's the very definition of prejudice and what the law's supposed to stop. While I don't doubt you'd treat everyone fairly, this law is in place because of those who won't.

I'm not clear what you're saying here. Should I be allowed to refuse service to the racists?

How do you know they're racists? They must have said or done something. The Civil Rights Act isn't about barring individuals for bad behavior, but not allowing businesses to bar entire classes of people without their doing anything that disturbs the peace. Making bad language or offensive actions a reason for refusal of service, has always been a business person's right.

No, they're not doing anything presently - but I saw them earlier handing out racist literature at the park. I'm not going to serve them, and you think I should go to jail for that?

 

[konradv]

I sat in a restaurant in Boston Massachusetts, with my husband and my parents who were visiting from Florida. The table next to us was a black and Hispanic mixed family....they were there before us. We ordered and got our meal, before they were even given their water...they were being shunned, completely shunned and ignored on all of their questions and requests for service....in short, my father asked for the bill and paid it and with the food on the table, we left...never to return again to this restaurant.... for years now, almost a decade, this has haunted me.

My parents were visiting on their vacation and leaving with our meals untouched, was all that we did....and I wish now we had done more, or wonder if we could have done more? We were ignorant on laws and city regs for businesses at the time....but still....I wish we had gone to the manager...though he was a part of this racial discrimination, because they asked to speak to him and he refused to come out and talk with them.... again, but still.....I wish we had taken the restaurant's name and the server's name and the manager's name and the names of the racial discriminated victims and knew where and how to report such a thing to authorities....

this is what still happens WITH the law....I can't IMAGINE the discrimination that would occur without the law....

As far as your example of the above.....YES, even if you disagree with racial activists, if they are coming in to your diner for food, you are to treat them like anyone else...you serve them what they are paying for in the same timely manner that you serve everyone else. Do you have to chit chat with them or even smile at them, NO, OF COURSE NOT....they are not paying for a smile and chit chat...they are paying for a service, and you are required to give them what they paid for...just like everyone else that buys from you.

If these racist activists decide to cause a ruckus and disturbs you and other customers, you have every right, even now with the law, to remove or order these customers to leave, if they don't, then you can call the cops and have them removed.

The law doesn't need changing, it needs to be followed, and still isn't in this day and age, imo.

Thanks for the story. Mine isn't quite as long, but I'll never forget road trips to Florida as a child during which I saw gas stations with three bathrooms "Men", "Women" and "Colored". I still think there are people around who don't recognize anyone who isn't like them as man and women, but some foreign/evil "other". In light of that the civil rights acts are still sadly needed, IMO.

 

[konradv]

No, they're not doing anything presently - but I saw them earlier handing out racist literature at the park. I'm not going to serve them, and you think I should go to jail for that?

That's just too easy. "I saw them do something yesterday." If they're really what you say they are, they won't be able to control themselves in your establishment either.

 

[dblack]

No, they're not doing anything presently - but I saw them earlier handing out racist literature at the park. I'm not going to serve them, and you think I should go to jail for that?

That's just too easy. "I saw them do something yesterday." If they're really what you say they are, they won't be able to control themselves in your establishment either.

So, should I be able to refuse them service or not?

Here, let's try another example. Let's say there's a new religion gaining traction that advocates child sacrifice. They're not actively practicing it yet, but they think it's an awesome idea and they're aggressively lobbying to change the laws so they can, freedom of religion and all that. Naturally, I find this reprehensible, and I put up a sign that says we won't serve anyone who is a member of this new religion. Would that be wrong in your book? Should it be illegal? I think, technically, it probably already is. Does that make sense to you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

I sat in a restaurant in Boston Massachusetts, with my husband and my parents who were visiting from Florida. The table next to us was a black and Hispanic mixed family....they were there before us. We ordered and got our meal, before they were even given their water...they were being shunned, completely shunned and ignored on all of their questions and requests for service....in short, my father asked for the bill and paid it and with the food on the table, we left...never to return again to this restaurant.... for years now, almost a decade, this has haunted me.

My parents were visiting on their vacation and leaving with our meals untouched, was all that we did....and I wish now we had done more, or wonder if we could have done more? We were ignorant on laws and city regs for businesses at the time....but still....I wish we had gone to the manager...though he was a part of this racial discrimination, because they asked to speak to him and he refused to come out and talk with them.... again, but still.....I wish we had taken the restaurant's name and the server's name and the manager's name and the names of the racial discriminated victims and knew where and how to report such a thing to authorities....

this is what still happens WITH the law....I can't IMAGINE the discrimination that would occur without the law....

As far as your example of the above.....YES, even if you disagree with racial activists, if they are coming in to your diner for food, you are to treat them like anyone else...you serve them what they are paying for in the same timely manner that you serve everyone else. Do you have to chit chat with them or even smile at them, NO, OF COURSE NOT....they are not paying for a smile and chit chat...they are paying for a service, and you are required to give them what they paid for...just like everyone else that buys from you.

If these racist activists decide to cause a ruckus and disturbs you and other customers, you have every right, even now with the law, to remove or order these customers to leave, if they don't, then you can call the cops and have them removed.

The law doesn't need changing, it needs to be followed, and still isn't in this day and age, imo.

He's talking about racists. I don't do business with racists, myself, and I don't appreciate your utterly arbitrary justification for any law that says I must. I don't appreciate tyranny in any form, and I don't care to do business with those who do. Moreover, you're dead wrong anyway. Under federal law I most certainly can tell racists, bigots, statists, degenerates and so on to get the hell out of my restaurant. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender and national origin. It doesn't say anything about me discriminating against moronic ideologues: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or David Duke; Black Panthers, Klansman, skin heads, communists, Nazis, Islamofascists, Scientologists, Satanists, homofascists, multiculturalists. . . .

Get the picture?

 

[dblack]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

I sat in a restaurant in Boston Massachusetts, with my husband and my parents who were visiting from Florida. The table next to us was a black and Hispanic mixed family....they were there before us. We ordered and got our meal, before they were even given their water...they were being shunned, completely shunned and ignored on all of their questions and requests for service....in short, my father asked for the bill and paid it and with the food on the table, we left...never to return again to this restaurant.... for years now, almost a decade, this has haunted me.

My parents were visiting on their vacation and leaving with our meals untouched, was all that we did....and I wish now we had done more, or wonder if we could have done more? We were ignorant on laws and city regs for businesses at the time....but still....I wish we had gone to the manager...though he was a part of this racial discrimination, because they asked to speak to him and he refused to come out and talk with them.... again, but still.....I wish we had taken the restaurant's name and the server's name and the manager's name and the names of the racial discriminated victims and knew where and how to report such a thing to authorities....

this is what still happens WITH the law....I can't IMAGINE the discrimination that would occur without the law....

As far as your example of the above.....YES, even if you disagree with racial activists, if they are coming in to your diner for food, you are to treat them like anyone else...you serve them what they are paying for in the same timely manner that you serve everyone else. Do you have to chit chat with them or even smile at them, NO, OF COURSE NOT....they are not paying for a smile and chit chat...they are paying for a service, and you are required to give them what they paid for...just like everyone else that buys from you.

If these racist activists decide to cause a ruckus and disturbs you and other customers, you have every right, even now with the law, to remove or order these customers to leave, if they don't, then you can call the cops and have them removed.

The law doesn't need changing, it needs to be followed, and still isn't in this day and age, imo.

He's talking about racists. I don't do business with racists, myself, and I don't appreciate your utterly arbitrary justification for any law that says I must. I don't appreciate tyranny in any form, and I don't care to do business with those who do. Moreover, you're dead wrong anyway. Under federal law I most certainly can tell racists, bigots, statists, degenerates and so on to get the hell out of my restaurant. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender and national origin. It doesn't say anything about me discriminating against moronic ideologues: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or David Duke; Black Panthers, Klansman, skin heads, communists, Nazis, Islamofascists, homofascists, multiculturalists. . . .

Get the picture?

I was planning to point that out, but I wanted to see how far they'd take this "everyone must be treated equally" nonsense.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If that we're not a concern, if racists did not want to continue to treat blacks as second class citizens, there would be no one wanting to repeal it. Read the daily news. What is needed is to strengthen the law.

I do read the news. As a whole Americans get along great. Throw out this divisive reminder of the past. It would be a breath of fresh air, a rebirth of sorts.

Its only divisive because you call it divisive. You can call seat belt laws divisive too because it stops the people who dont like seat belts from being able to do what they want.

But we all know the real reason you consider only laws on race divisive. Notice you dont cite religion or gender.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Liberals need the Civil Rights Act (which is now moot) as a reminder in their minds of how "bad and evil" America is. Liberal history begins in 1964. They hate the generation that won WWII. They can't accept that a segregated society would defeat Nazism. Ruins the victory for them. So Civil Rights Movement, that they want to fight over and over and over and over again...only divides America. Give the young generation a chance to grow without your liberal hatred.

Are you prouder that Nazis were defeated or that it was done by a segregationist society?

Keep twisting in the wind. How could Liberals (who established the Civil Rights Act) be full of hate while Conservatives (who opposed the Civil Rights Act) want to repeal it?

Why are Conservatives hell bent to erode Civil Rights? Is it because they want to bank the fires of discrimination because discrimination appeals so much for them? Who are the haters here?

You're the hater who fails to grasp the fact that inalienable rights, i.e., the civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, trump civil rights. You don't grasp the difference between negative and positive rights, and you don't grasp the existential threat to liberty that elevating the mobocratic rule of civil rights above the imperatives of inalienable rights is.

It was "conservative" Wilsonian progressives in the South who opposed the letter of the 1964 Act because they opposed the spirit of the same. They were useful to the Democratic Party's agenda, insofar as they served to promote progressive corporatism for decades, until Jim Crow wasn't cool anymore. Overt, institutionalized racism could no longer be justified. Besides, Lyndon "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Johnson established the welfare plantation with his "War on Poverty" legislation (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964) to replace all that noise on the down low.

Classical liberals (the conservatives and libertarians of this nation's founding ethos) didn't oppose the spirit of the Civil Rights Act. They opposed the tyranny of the letter. They were not racists. They were not motivated by racism. On the contrary, they despised racism. They were motivated by liberty and understood the power of liberty to right societal wrongs. They also understood what the progressives of the Hegelian dialectic were really about, just like another classical liberal of the Civil War Era understood what the house ******* of the welfare plantation mentality were really all about:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. . . . There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public. —Booker T. Washington​

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

How many of those signs do you REALLY think you're going to see?

The REALITY is that what you will see is companies having the ability to toss women like this

Watch this lady demand free drinks because her ancestors were slaves 8230 wow

out without fear of being sued for throwing a black person out

But, on the subject of signs, how could you not agree that outlawing such signs violate the right to free speech?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I have a right to do business with whom I please, you do NOT have a right to force me to do business with you. Seriously do you people have ANY critical thinking skills?

If you had that right, the SC would have said so. They obviously don't equate free association in your personal life with that of your business. If you want to make a profit off of American society, then you must treat all its members equally.

Yes. We disagree with the SC. Didn't you get the memo?

In a truly just society, that would make you wrong. You can do whatever you want in your home, but if you open your doors to the public, you must treat everyone equally.

This point of view is truly insane. Not only does it utterly violate individual conscience and freedom of choice, it neuters the most important moral regulation society can impose - the ability for people to express our values and preferences in the public forum. What's more, you don't even mean it. The protected classes established by discrimination law protect only a very limited set of people from discrimination. The rest of us don't enjoy such privilege. Ugly people, fat people, dumb people, etc, etc, etc, are discriminated against every day. Would you suggest something be done about that as well? If not, why not?

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

I don't think you've really thought this through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to make the point.

Let's consider an example. Let's say I own a lunch counter. I have a deep, personal contempt for racism and active racists. Yet, by your reasoning, if I refuse to serve them with the same eager service I offer to the rest of the 'public', I'm violating the sacred principle that everyone must be treated equally. Does that make sense to you?

You make language and conduct rules that apply to everyone, akin to "No shirt, no shoes , no service" signs. You don't keep all of a certain class out. That's the very definition of prejudice and what the law's supposed to stop. While I don't doubt you'd treat everyone fairly, this law is in place because of those who won't.

You liberals "let's just legislate that everyone gets alone,who gives a shit about the rights of people we disagree with"

I give a shit about the rights of people I disagree with, defending even the most repugnant of behavior if done within a person's rights is the very foundation of this country.

And none of you liberals have answered my question Has SCOTUS ruled recently that businesses have rights, or not? Yes or no?

 

[konradv]

You liberals "let's just legislate that everyone gets alone,who gives a shit about the rights of people we disagree with"

I give a shit about the rights of people I disagree with, defending even the most repugnant of behavior if done within a person's rights is the very foundation of this country.

And none of you liberals have answered my question Has SCOTUS ruled recently that businesses have rights, or not? Yes or no?

Of course they do, but that's neither here nor there, because it doesn't delineate exactly what rights you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific, for your question to have any relevance. IMO, you're just trying to set up a "gotcha". Quit playing games and debate like a man.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You liberals "let's just legislate that everyone gets alone,who gives a shit about the rights of people we disagree with"

I give a shit about the rights of people I disagree with, defending even the most repugnant of behavior if done within a person's rights is the very foundation of this country.

And none of you liberals have answered my question Has SCOTUS ruled recently that businesses have rights, or not? Yes or no?

Of course they do, but that's neither here nor there, because it doesn't delineate exactly what rights you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific, for your question to have any relevance. IMO, you're just trying to set up a "gotcha". Quit playing games and debate like a man.

So what you're saying is that businesses can have some rights, but not others? What about people? Do you advocate that some people don't deserve certain rights as well?

Oh, and your bullshit about "like a man" is just that, bullshit. Son , you are so dishonest that it's not even funny

A law that affords certain groups extra protections is by its very nature unconstitutional.

 

[konradv]

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

How many of those signs do you REALLY think you're going to see?

The REALITY is that what you will see is companies having the ability to toss women like this

Watch this lady demand free drinks because her ancestors were slaves 8230 wow

out without fear of being sued for throwing a black person out

But, on the subject of signs, how could you not agree that outlawing such signs violate the right to free speech?

Since those kinds of signs have been around within living memory and the attitudes that fostered them are still around, I'd say one is too many because that would lead to 2,3, 4...

As for violating the the right to free speech, we know that it's not absolute. There are laws against revealing state secrets, trade secrets, slander and libel, etc.. Those kinds of signs are just another instance where the right doesn't apply.

 

[konradv]

You liberals "let's just legislate that everyone gets alone,who gives a shit about the rights of people we disagree with"

I give a shit about the rights of people I disagree with, defending even the most repugnant of behavior if done within a person's rights is the very foundation of this country.

And none of you liberals have answered my question Has SCOTUS ruled recently that businesses have rights, or not? Yes or no?

Of course they do, but that's neither here nor there, because it doesn't delineate exactly what rights you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific, for your question to have any relevance. IMO, you're just trying to set up a "gotcha". Quit playing games and debate like a man.

So what you're saying is that businesses can have some rights, but not others? What about people? Do you advocate that some people don't deserve certain rights as well?

Oh, and your bullshit about "like a man" is just that, bullshit. Son , you are so dishonest that it's not even funny

A law that affords certain groups extra protections is by its very nature unconstitutional.

Of course business can have some rights but not others. They have no right to dump toxins in a river, even if they own land on both banks or even the whole watershed. That's why I say you're playing games and not debating like a man. You throw out really stupid statements just hoping something will stick.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If a business discriminates against the classes you mention, they can be sued. Happens all the time. I hardly think that I'm the one that's insane. I think you're guilty of wishful thinking by assuming we can have both a civil society AND a situation where signs in business windows say "No Irish need apply".

How many of those signs do you REALLY think you're going to see?

The REALITY is that what you will see is companies having the ability to toss women like this

Watch this lady demand free drinks because her ancestors were slaves 8230 wow

out without fear of being sued for throwing a black person out

But, on the subject of signs, how could you not agree that outlawing such signs violate the right to free speech?

Since those kinds of signs have been around within living memory and the attitudes that fostered them are still around, I'd say one is too many because that would lead to 2,3, 4...

As for violating the the right to free speech, we know that it's not absolute. There are laws against revealing state secrets, trade secrets, slander and libel, etc.. Those kinds of signs are just another instance where the right doesn't apply.

Man, you're just all kinds of ate up with the dumb asses aren't you.

There is no law against "violating state secrets" , go ahead look it up, I'll wait.

There is a law against treason, and anytime you violate the NDA that you have signed with the government you have committed treason.

Slander and libel are CIVIL matters, not criminal. Do you understand that the COTUS only guarantees that THE GOVERNMENT won't violate your rights?

Same with revealing trade secrets, the only CRIME that could possibly be attributed to that is THEFT, if intellectual property is involved. Simply telling trade secrets might be a violation of any agreement you agreed to with the company involved but is not necessarily a crime unless theft was involved.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You liberals "let's just legislate that everyone gets alone,who gives a shit about the rights of people we disagree with"

I give a shit about the rights of people I disagree with, defending even the most repugnant of behavior if done within a person's rights is the very foundation of this country.

And none of you liberals have answered my question Has SCOTUS ruled recently that businesses have rights, or not? Yes or no?

Of course they do, but that's neither here nor there, because it doesn't delineate exactly what rights you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific, for your question to have any relevance. IMO, you're just trying to set up a "gotcha". Quit playing games and debate like a man.

So what you're saying is that businesses can have some rights, but not others? What about people? Do you advocate that some people don't deserve certain rights as well?

Oh, and your bullshit about "like a man" is just that, bullshit. Son , you are so dishonest that it's not even funny

A law that affords certain groups extra protections is by its very nature unconstitutional.

Of course business can have some rights but not others. They have no right to dump toxins in a river, even if they own land on both banks or even the whole watershed. That's why I say you're playing games and not debating like a man. You throw out really stupid statements just hoping something will stick.

Neither does an individual Polluting isn't a right. Try again

 

[teapartysamurai]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out, it was not the businesses that wanted segregation. They saw the dollars from blacks just as green as from whites. It was Democrats who forced Jim Crowe on businesses, such as insisting blacks sit in the back of the bus.

I wouldn't repeal it. Not that I think we would go back to Jim Crowe for blacks.

On the contrary. Like Affirmative Action, liberals would use the repeal of the law to discriminate against whites, Christians, Jews, Asians as they do now with Affirmative Action.

Like Affirmative Action, they would justify it, by saying, past "injustice" justified making things "equal" now.

Of course, it would not be equal but equality is not what they want in the first place. They want to justify discrimination.