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.
It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?
If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.
And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?
I didn't say that did I.
How is the situation significantly different?
They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
And there is no law that supports that.It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?
If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.
And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?
I didn't say that did I.
How is the situation significantly different?
One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.
The other is discriminatory against a person wanting to buy a product that is available to all and such discrimination should be illegal as a condition of receiving a business license. The black guy can buy anything on the menu, but he has no right to demand that the restaurant provide him with something that isn't on the menu any more than anybody else does.
Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?
I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.
My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?
I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.
I don't think he's a bigot. In fact I'm sure of it.Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?
I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.
you run a business that accommodates the public... you can't discriminate.
you don't understand it because you're a bigot.
I'd be happy to discriminate against you!Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?
I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.
My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
I don't think he's a bigot. In fact I'm sure of it.Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?
I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.
you run a business that accommodates the public... you can't discriminate.
you don't understand it because you're a bigot.
My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.
Businesses are private, too.My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
No it isn't. There are all kinds of castle doctrine laws on the books. There are all kinds of public accommodation laws on the books. Never the twain shall meet. Unless I turn my home into a hotel or some other public accommodation venue.My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.
My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.
in winger world....
They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.Businesses are private, too.My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
So no, then. You don't understand.
So ultimately you have a problem with the concept of freedom of association? I'm just saying that, if you don't support a business, then don't enter into a business relationship with it. Don't force people to enter a contract with you and destroy their livelihood should they decline for any reason.Honestly? Yeah. And they were well within their rights to start a black-only restaurant as well (though the white supremacist social structure of the time would have wrongly denied them the ability to exercise that right).And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?
In full honesty I just wouldn't really have a problem wandering into, say, a black-only store and being informed that I wasn't going to be served there. That's because the business owner has the right to refuse to make a contract with me. If my business isn't wanted there, then I can take it elsewhere. If they reject enough customers then they'll go out of business. That's how capitalism works. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum and cry about it to every activist group I can find so they can rain legal hell and shut the business down, force the owner's family into the gutter, and gloat about my victory for justice and tolerance while I piss on them all for it. I'm just not liberal like that, you know?
I'd have a problem with both scenarios.
No it isn't. There are all kinds of castle doctrine laws on the books. There are all kinds of public accommodation laws on the books. Never the twain shall meet. Unless I turn my home into a hotel or some other public accommodation venue.My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.
One-track mind liberals.They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.Businesses are private, too.My home isn't a public accommodation.They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.
Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.
So no, then. You don't understand.
And there is no law that supports that.It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?
If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.
And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?
I didn't say that did I.
How is the situation significantly different?
One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.
The other is discriminatory against a person wanting to buy a product that is available to all and such discrimination should be illegal as a condition of receiving a business license. The black guy can buy anything on the menu, but he has no right to demand that the restaurant provide him with something that isn't on the menu any more than anybody else does.
