For 8 years the right has been called racist.

[NYcarbineer]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

 

[jillian]

The term racism is a watered down interpretation and excuse used by liberals when a candidate or party does not agree with the liberal's ideological view and interpretation for the role of government. When a conservative speaks out who happens to be African American, this whole discussion of "it's the GOP that's the party of racists" roaring it's ugly head becomes so laughable that I simply can't take anything the liberals have to say on the subject seriously. How you act accordingly to THOSE African Americans, who only happens to share a different political perspective, speaks a lot towards your views and interpretation of racism.

What's particularly pathetic about the race whores like Jillian is there is actual racism in the world and their endless quest to label anyone who disagrees with them a racist just overwhelmingly dulls the use of the word to background noise and actually protects actual racists

Well if you believe in the respect of our federal immigration laws through enforcement, you are considered a racist.

When you present them with the real world "reality" of the kind of people that are behind these terrorists attacks. As well as present them with where their strongholds and training camps reside, with the common sense approach as to why you simply don't open your doors to refugees in regions where the threat terrorists thrives, you are called a racist.

It's just the kind of games that liberals play, when you just don't agree with their views on the issues and they simply can't get their way.

we have been deporting people. the numbers of people coming in has been flat for ages.

the games are yours. if you don't like the labels you get, stop nominating people who call mexicans rapists, a latina beauty queen "miss housekeeping" (which doesn't even begin to touch on the disgusting things your orange loser says about women) and stop cheering every time black kids get killed.

now go pretend that you don't vote for bigoted policies. in normal society, a man who re-tweets white supremacists wouldn't even be considered acceptable to have lunch with, much less represent this country to the world.

the bigger joke is that your ilk doesn't care if your electoral system is hacked by putin. how much must you hate your country.

Again the flat out lie that Trump called "mexicans rapists." He said rapists come across the border from Mexico, which is true and an entirely different thing.

This is how you prove what a political slut you are. If Trump was really what you say, you'd say the truth. But lies like this prove you are to be ignored. It actually defends Trump because you kill all your credibility and nothing you say is to be believed

Thanks for clearing this up, poor Donald was defamed by the MSM: See,

Donald Trump doubles down on calling Mexicans 'rapists' - CNN Video

Ooops

yes, how dare anyone quote him and factcheck him.

damn, trumpsers are such dolts. they prove every day why Donald only wins the uneducated angry white male demographic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The absurdity of some of these posters' notions of what the Constitution is and does is frankly hilarious.

 

[jillian]

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

Was that a yes or a no?

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

government has every right to make sure that we don't live with jim crow laws.

 

[jillian]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The absurdity of some of these posters' notions of what the Constitution is and does is frankly hilarious.

pathetic, actually

 

[martybegan]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

 

[jillian]

Again the flat out lie that Trump called "mexicans rapists." He said rapists come across the border from Mexico, which is true and an entirely different thing.

This is how you prove what a political slut you are. If Trump was really what you say, you'd say the truth. But lies like this prove you are to be ignored. It actually defends Trump because you kill all your credibility and nothing you say is to be believed

Trump was fear mongering...

Mexico is sending "its worst" across the border...murderers, rapists, drug dealers
Lock up your wives and daughters, look suspiciously at all Mexicans...you can't be too safe

Fear mongering to justify a needless wall

This post is nothing but fear mongering & lies.

An ILLEGAL MEXICAN killed this poor woman in California. If we didn't have 11 million illegal Mexicans, she would be alive

Be very afraid of these Mexicans, they will murder you...rape you...bring disease into the country

That is why we need to ignore all of our other needs and build a wall. Why we need to ramp up deportation and build holding camps to protect us from these scary Mexicans

When the reality is....most are just here trying to work and support a family

Controlling our borders and reducing the drain on our social services is step 1 in fixing our country, there are other steps needed.

And your appeal to emotion is noted.

What process do you support to control our borders and to reduce the drain on social services? Please provide the cost benefits and cost deficits; don't forget that unintended consequences can be a real headache.

good luck with that.

 

[martybegan]

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

Was that a yes or a no?

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

The actual argument is if the right to not be discriminated against trumps every other right, regardless of the situation. An example I use is the difference between booking a room at a hotel for an overnight stay, and booking one of their rooms for a wedding reception.

To me, the hotel cannot deny a person a room because they are "X", but they can deny them use of the hall for the marriage of "X", or a convention of "X" if said event goes against their moral code.

 

[martybegan]

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

Was that a yes or a no?

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

government has every right to make sure that we don't live with jim crow laws.

Again, laws made by government that are discriminatory are not the issue here. The issue is the "right" of any given oppressed class to force themselves on anyone else without limits.

 

[james bond]

History shows N-word created by Democrats. The racists are in their party.

1885 illustration from Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, captioned "Misto Bradish's n*gger"

"There is a direct and strong link between the word ****** and anti-black caricatures. Although ****** has been used to refer to any person of known African ancestry.2 it is usually directed against blacks who supposedly have certain negative characteristics. The Coon caricature, for example, portrays black men as lazy, ignorant, and obsessively self-indulgent; these are also traits historically represented by the word ******. The Brute caricature depicts black men as angry, physically strong, animalistic, and prone to wanton violence. This depiction is also implied in the word ******. The Tom and Mammy caricatures are often portrayed as kind, loving "friends" of whites. They are also presented as intellectually childlike, physically unattractive, and neglectful of their biological families. These latter traits have been associated with blacks, generally, and are implied in the word ******. The word ****** was a shorthand way of saying that blacks possessed the moral, intellectual, social, and physical characteristics of the Coon, Brute, Tom, Mammy, and other racial caricatures."

JCM: ****** and Caricature

Do you know what year it is?

It's an election year. And the racists are still in the Democratic Party. Was that so hard?

Really? Who are the Democrats who currently oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe people like you, but for sure the openly racist ones who post here.

 

[jillian]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

 

[kaz]

What's particularly pathetic about the race whores like Jillian is there is actual racism in the world and their endless quest to label anyone who disagrees with them a racist just overwhelmingly dulls the use of the word to background noise and actually protects actual racists

Well if you believe in the respect of our federal immigration laws through enforcement, you are considered a racist.

When you present them with the real world "reality" of the kind of people that are behind these terrorists attacks. As well as present them with where their strongholds and training camps reside, with the common sense approach as to why you simply don't open your doors to refugees in regions where the threat terrorists thrives, you are called a racist.

It's just the kind of games that liberals play, when you just don't agree with their views on the issues and they simply can't get their way.

we have been deporting people. the numbers of people coming in has been flat for ages.

the games are yours. if you don't like the labels you get, stop nominating people who call mexicans rapists, a latina beauty queen "miss housekeeping" (which doesn't even begin to touch on the disgusting things your orange loser says about women) and stop cheering every time black kids get killed.

now go pretend that you don't vote for bigoted policies. in normal society, a man who re-tweets white supremacists wouldn't even be considered acceptable to have lunch with, much less represent this country to the world.

the bigger joke is that your ilk doesn't care if your electoral system is hacked by putin. how much must you hate your country.

Again the flat out lie that Trump called "mexicans rapists." He said rapists come across the border from Mexico, which is true and an entirely different thing.

This is how you prove what a political slut you are. If Trump was really what you say, you'd say the truth. But lies like this prove you are to be ignored. It actually defends Trump because you kill all your credibility and nothing you say is to be believed

Thanks for clearing this up, poor Donald was defamed by the MSM: See,

Donald Trump doubles down on calling Mexicans 'rapists' - CNN Video

Ooops

yes, how dare anyone quote him and factcheck him.

damn, trumpsers are such dolts. they prove every day why Donald only wins the uneducated angry white male demographic.

Watch the video and read the captions, you stupid skank

 

[jillian]

History shows N-word created by Democrats. The racists are in their party.

1885 illustration from Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, captioned "Misto Bradish's n*gger"

"There is a direct and strong link between the word ****** and anti-black caricatures. Although ****** has been used to refer to any person of known African ancestry.2 it is usually directed against blacks who supposedly have certain negative characteristics. The Coon caricature, for example, portrays black men as lazy, ignorant, and obsessively self-indulgent; these are also traits historically represented by the word ******. The Brute caricature depicts black men as angry, physically strong, animalistic, and prone to wanton violence. This depiction is also implied in the word ******. The Tom and Mammy caricatures are often portrayed as kind, loving "friends" of whites. They are also presented as intellectually childlike, physically unattractive, and neglectful of their biological families. These latter traits have been associated with blacks, generally, and are implied in the word ******. The word ****** was a shorthand way of saying that blacks possessed the moral, intellectual, social, and physical characteristics of the Coon, Brute, Tom, Mammy, and other racial caricatures."

JCM: ****** and Caricature

Do you know what year it is?

It's an election year. And the racists are still in the Democratic Party. Was that so hard?

no little boy... the racists have left the democratic party to join the GOP.

are you intentionally lying or are you just a moron?

 

[martybegan]

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

 

[kaz]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

Yes, the 14th amendment says that government cannot treat it's citizens differently because of race and other reasons, it is a limit on government, not a power of government to force it's citizens to not treat each other differently.

Just like free speech, that doesn't protect you from your boss firing you, only from government prosecuting you. It's the ridiculousness of the left, constantly turning limits on government into powers of government

 

[bendog]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

Those who oppose gay marriage would probably disagree with your interpretation of equal protection. I don't, except to point out that equal protection under the law ONLY applies to laws ... or government decisions to grant, or deny, some benefit or right.

Any law saying private individuals may not base decisions about with whom they contract on prejudices about skin color or something has to be based upon some other power given to the govt under the const. The civil rights laws applying to private citizens' behavior are generally based on the commerce clause.

 

[kaz]

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

Swish, the air headed bimbo misses another point. If Marty owned a bake shop, I'm sure he'd happily sell cakes to blacks, gays, Muslims, even sluts like you. That wasn't his point. You really didn't grasp that, did you?

BTW, try to keep track, liberals are the ones who hate Jews

 

[kaz]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

Those who oppose gay marriage would probably disagree with your interpretation of equal protection. I don't, except to point out that equal protection under the law ONLY applies to laws ... or government decisions to grant, or deny, some benefit or right.

Any law saying private individuals may not base decisions about with whom they contract on prejudices about skin color or something has to be based upon some other power given to the govt under the const. The civil rights laws applying to private citizens' behavior are generally based on the commerce clause.

What does baking a cake have to do with interstate commerce?

 

[bendog]

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

Those who oppose gay marriage would probably disagree with your interpretation of equal protection. I don't, except to point out that equal protection under the law ONLY applies to laws ... or government decisions to grant, or deny, some benefit or right.

Any law saying private individuals may not base decisions about with whom they contract on prejudices about skin color or something has to be based upon some other power given to the govt under the const. The civil rights laws applying to private citizens' behavior are generally based on the commerce clause.

What does baking a cake have to do with interstate commerce?

Don't ask ME! LOL Ask THEM!

That said, if I were a baker I'd happily bake for anyone who would pay me. LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ If Marty owned a bake shop, I'm sure he'd happily sell cakes to blacks, gays, Muslims, even sluts like you. That wasn't his point. You really didn't grasp that, did you?

Anti-discrimination laws are not for the people who don't discriminate.