Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[konradv]

I can discriminate against anyone I please, just like a woman who wants to be examined by a female gynecologist can discriminate against male gynecologists.

You got this a little backwards. The woman is the customer, the gynecologist is the business.

Irrelevant. She's discriminating. Your position is that discrimination is an evil act. Why condone being "a little bit pregnant?"

That wasn't my position. I said that businesses shouldn't discriminate. What you do in your own home or who you patronize is your own business. Let's make a deal. You tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think. You telling me what I think is where you always get into trouble.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

^ flame with absolutely nothing substantive to say about the topic, yet believes he's some great debater.

When I tried to be substantive, you became abusive. If you're going to act childishly, that's the way I'm going to treat you. Your choice all the way. Clean up your act and we may have a real debate someday, but for now this is just really boring and a waste of my time.

In other words, you're wrong, you know you're wrong so instead of being a man and admitting you're wrong you have chosed to pretend like I abused you and that is why you are running from me....

 

[konradv]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

^ flame with absolutely nothing substantive to say about the topic, yet believes he's some great debater.

When I tried to be substantive, you became abusive. If you're going to act childishly, that's the way I'm going to treat you. Your choice all the way. Clean up your act and we may have a real debate someday, but for now this is just really boring and a waste of my time.

In other words, you're wrong, you know you're wrong so instead of being a man and admitting you're wrong you have chosed to pretend like I abused you and that is why you are running from me....

No, it's because you're boring and twist things to suit your bias. I really don't care. believe whatever you want. Life's too short for me to take much time worrying about it. As for being abused, you did start the name-calling. It may not seem like much, but I have my standards.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

^ flame with absolutely nothing substantive to say about the topic, yet believes he's some great debater.

When I tried to be substantive, you became abusive. If you're going to act childishly, that's the way I'm going to treat you. Your choice all the way. Clean up your act and we may have a real debate someday, but for now this is just really boring and a waste of my time.

In other words, you're wrong, you know you're wrong so instead of being a man and admitting you're wrong you have chosed to pretend like I abused you and that is why you are running from me....

No, it's because you're boring and twist things to suit your bias. I really don't care. believe whatever you want. Life's too short for me to take much time worrying about it. As for being abused, you did start the name-calling. It may not seem like much, but I have my standards.

And those standard appear to include "not debating anyone who schools me"

I suggest you join a Hello Kitty forum



it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to associate with those who they don't want to

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can discriminate against anyone I please, just like a woman who wants to be examined by a female gynecologist can discriminate against male gynecologists.

You got this a little backwards. The woman is the customer, the gynecologist is the business.

Irrelevant. She's discriminating. Your position is that discrimination is an evil act. Why condone being "a little bit pregnant?"

That wasn't my position. I said that businesses shouldn't discriminate. What you do in your own home or who you patronize is your own business. Let's make a deal. You tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think. You telling me what I think is where you always get into trouble.

If I'm a business owner, then you feel you have the right to force me into involuntary associations. OK, if you're a car owner, I feel I have the right to force you to attend a Scientology Church every Sunday morning. It's no skin off your nose to force your will onto me and similarly it's no skin off my nose to force my will onto you. You don't care whether I wish to engage in the associations you force onto me and I don't care whether you object to Scientology as a religion or to the associations you must endure while you sit there and they preach to you about aliens or whatever it is they believe. You believe that some greater good justifies you trampling on my human rights and I return the favor.

 

[konradv]

If I'm a business owner, then you feel you have the right to force me into involuntary associations. OK, if you're a car owner, I feel I have the right to force you to attend a Scientology Church every Sunday morning. It's no skin off your nose to force your will onto me and similarly it's no skin off my nose to force my will onto you. You don't care whether I wish to engage in the associations you force onto me and I don't care whether you object to Scientology as a religion or to the associations you must endure while you sit there and they preach to you about aliens or whatever it is they believe. You believe that some greater good justifies you trampling on my human rights and I return the favor.

There you go again, telling me what I think. You're also getting off-topic. I was talking about businesses treating everyone fairly, NOT forcing individuals to do things in their private lives. Take a deep breath, clear your head and try again

 

[konradv]

so you're back for another beating eh? Why should the "business class" be allowed to discriminate? That would be a good point, IF we were talking about not letting others discriminate. I don't care if the corner street bum discriminates.

Take a deep breath. Gather your wits. You seem to be losing it. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who's "smarter than the average bear". You seem to be under the illusion that you've laid a glove on me, when you're no better than Foreman against Ali's rope-a-dope.

^ flame with absolutely nothing substantive to say about the topic, yet believes he's some great debater.

When I tried to be substantive, you became abusive. If you're going to act childishly, that's the way I'm going to treat you. Your choice all the way. Clean up your act and we may have a real debate someday, but for now this is just really boring and a waste of my time.

In other words, you're wrong, you know you're wrong so instead of being a man and admitting you're wrong you have chosed to pretend like I abused you and that is why you are running from me....

No, it's because you're boring and twist things to suit your bias. I really don't care. believe whatever you want. Life's too short for me to take much time worrying about it. As for being abused, you did start the name-calling. It may not seem like much, but I have my standards.

And those standard appear to include "not debating anyone who schools me"

I suggest you join a Hello Kitty forum



it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force people to associate with those who they don't want to

How could you possibly be schooling me? You're saying things that are patently false. If it was unconstitutional, wouldn't the SC have said so? Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit either. Night, night, son.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If I'm a business owner, then you feel you have the right to force me into involuntary associations. OK, if you're a car owner, I feel I have the right to force you to attend a Scientology Church every Sunday morning. It's no skin off your nose to force your will onto me and similarly it's no skin off my nose to force my will onto you. You don't care whether I wish to engage in the associations you force onto me and I don't care whether you object to Scientology as a religion or to the associations you must endure while you sit there and they preach to you about aliens or whatever it is they believe. You believe that some greater good justifies you trampling on my human rights and I return the favor.

There you go again, telling me what I think. You're also getting off-topic. I was talking about businesses treating everyone fairly, NOT forcing individuals to do things in their private lives. Take a deep breath, clear your head and try again

What is it that you're not understanding? Why are you harping on this artificial divide between a person's business life and their personal life? We all understand that YOU think that this is a valid divide, but I and others most certainly don't see any divide.

So taking your argument (what you think is important allows you to impose your will on others) I devised a parallel argument. You think that it is fine to violate the human rights of business people, and I match you with the counterclaim of violating your rights to religious freedom if you own a car. See, we both use an arbitrary division (business life versus personal life) and (car owner versus non car owner) and we apply different standards with respect to observing human rights - business people can have their human rights trampled and so too can car owners. You argue that a business owner becomes a 2nd class citizen, not deserving of the same rights as a private citizen and I match you, car owners also become 2nd class citizens, not deserving of the same rights as pedestrians.

Isn't that easy-peasy to understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bear and Rik are trying the old 'let's change definitions from the traditional and historical' so they can have a chance to make a point by distorting the argument, then have the never to whine and whimper when caught out.

One has a right to private association, but when that association crosses into the public sector, then it can be and is regulated.

No one gets to hold out publicly a service or custom without being subject to the law, or by trying to hide behind a nonsense "artificial divide".

Not going to change.

 

[Rikurzhen]

bear and Rik are trying the old 'let's change definitions from the traditional and historical' so they can have a chance to make a point by distorting the argument, then have the never to whine and whimper when caught out.

One has a right to private association, but when that association crosses into the public sector, then it can be and is regulated.

No one gets to hold out publicly a service or custom without being subject to the law.

Not going to change.

That's an arbitrary line. The only support you have for that arbitrary line is to claim "it's the law." Dred Scott was also settled law. Did that end the slavery question for all time?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Considering you are arguing difference of kind not degree, I will simply pat you on the read and tell you to read more. Read more, hmmm?

 

[konradv]

What is it that you're not understanding? Why are you harping on this artificial divide between a person's business life and their personal life? We all understand that YOU think that this is a valid divide, but I and others most certainly don't see any divide.

So taking your argument (what you think is important allows you to impose your will on others) I devised a parallel argument. You think that it is fine to violate the human rights of business people, and I match you with the counterclaim of violating your rights to religious freedom if you own a car. See, we both use an arbitrary division (business life versus personal life) and (car owner versus non car owner) and we apply different standards with respect to observing human rights - business people can have their human rights trampled and so too can car owners. You argue that a business owner becomes a 2nd class citizen, not deserving of the same rights as a private citizen and I match you, car owners also become 2nd class citizens, not deserving of the same rights as pedestrians.

I understand you're argument, but besides being and there being a basic difference between the owner of a business and one's private life, you've moved the goal posts on this discussion. The OP was about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifically had to do with what businesses had to do. The slippery-slope argument that you appear to be making doesn't impress me, as everything is on a slope to something. As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects. Isn't being forced to keep trade secrets by my boss hindering my freedom of speech? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the boss' freedoms be total, but not mine?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

bear and Rik are trying the old 'let's change definitions from the traditional and historical' so they can have a chance to make a point by distorting the argument, then have the never to whine and whimper when caught out.

One has a right to private association, but when that association crosses into the public sector, then it can be and is regulated.

No one gets to hold out publicly a service or custom without being subject to the law, or by trying to hide behind a nonsense "artificial divide".

Not going to change.

Oh really? I think there was just a recently a court ruling that said that in effect businesses have rights, was there not?

Can the police come in and search my business without a warrant, for example? No, why not? It's a "public accommodation"

You simpletons have no use for logic do you.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What is it that you're not understanding? Why are you harping on this artificial divide between a person's business life and their personal life? We all understand that YOU think that this is a valid divide, but I and others most certainly don't see any divide.

So taking your argument (what you think is important allows you to impose your will on others) I devised a parallel argument. You think that it is fine to violate the human rights of business people, and I match you with the counterclaim of violating your rights to religious freedom if you own a car. See, we both use an arbitrary division (business life versus personal life) and (car owner versus non car owner) and we apply different standards with respect to observing human rights - business people can have their human rights trampled and so too can car owners. You argue that a business owner becomes a 2nd class citizen, not deserving of the same rights as a private citizen and I match you, car owners also become 2nd class citizens, not deserving of the same rights as pedestrians.

I understand you're argument, but besides being and there being a basic difference between the owner of a business and one's private life, you've moved the goal posts on this discussion. The OP was about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifically had to do with what businesses had to do. The slippery-slope argument that you appear to be making doesn't impress me, as everything is on a slope to something. As for business people being second class citizens, that's basically the nature of business in some respects. Isn't being forced to keep trade secrets by my boss hindering my freedom of speech? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the boss' freedoms be total, but not mine?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

 

[konradv]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[konradv]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's totally false. You can't abridge my political speech, but you can abridge my economic speech, when it effects someone's trade secrets. It appears you don't much about the Constitution at all.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's totally false. You can't abridge my political speech, but you can abridge my economic speech, when it effects someone's trade secrets. It appears you don't much about the Constitution at all.

Actually I CAN abridge your political speech if you're on MY property. Certainly I can. MY property would include any businesses I owned.

 

[konradv]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's totally false. You can't abridge my political speech, but you can abridge my economic speech, when it effects someone's trade secrets. It appears you don't much about the Constitution at all.

Actually I CAN abridge your political speech if you're on MY property. Certainly I can. MY property would include any businesses I owned.

You've moved the goal posts. You just said it was an absolute right and emphasized that by capitalizing "ONLY" and "PERIOD". But even your restatement is incorrect. Revealing trade secrets is forbidden even if I'm not on your property.

I think you're a little over your head here and letting your emotions run away with your common sense. Once again I must say, you don't know the Constitution as well as you think.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The COTUS in noway keeps your boss from infringing on your rights.

You having an aneurysm? That's exactly what I said. Get some rest. You're imagining things!!!

What ?

You compared a private person making you keep a secret to the federal government not allowing you to discriminate, against certain peoples.

Listen , the ONLY way anti discrimination laws are constitutional is if they read you can't discriminate PERIOD. That isn't what they say though is it? No, they give SPECIAL protections to specific classes of people, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's totally false. You can't abridge my political speech, but you can abridge my economic speech, when it effects someone's trade secrets. It appears you don't much about the Constitution at all.

Actually I CAN abridge your political speech if you're on MY property. Certainly I can. MY property would include any businesses I owned.

You've moved the goal posts. You just said it was an absolute right and emphasized that by capitalizing "ONLY" and "PERIOD". But even your restatement is incorrect. Revealing trade secrets is forbidden even if I'm not on your property.

I think you're a little over your head here and letting your emotions run away with your common sense. Once again I must say, you don't know the Constitution as well as you think.

What goal posts have I moved sir? You are trying to equate me infringing on your rights with the government doing so. They are two entirely different matters.

Let's go with your "divulging inside info" bogeyman. If you work for me and I don't want you disclosing such, I have you sign a NDA, hell even the government does that. That is contract law, you have agreed to do X. I haven't limited your rights at all, you VOLUNTEERED to limit them.

Hell, join the military, you've given up a LOT of rights, the government infringes like hell. But you GAVE THOSE RIGHT UP VOLUNTARILY.

On the other hand , I could post a sign up in my business saying " no talking" and if you talk, you're asked to leave. Simple as that..... Perfectly legal.

Can the government post a sign up that says "no talking" and arrest you for talking? No they can't.

You are the one who is over their head hear son.