For 8 years the right has been called racist.

[TyroneSlothrop]

Fool me once shame on me Vote for Trump ...what are you fking stupid or something

 

[james bond]

Ha ha. It never would have passed without MLK who voted Republican.

(CNN)The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. He opposed affirmative action. He grew so radical near the end of his life that he considered renouncing nonviolence.

Which of those statements are true?
None of them. They're all bogus.
Debunking the biggest myths about MLK - CNN.com

For one, we now have evidence that CNN is a biased shill for the Democratic Party. The people behind the MSM are your puppet masters making you believe the revisionist history. The fact is racists post side by side with the Democrats, but poor ignorant blacks do not know. Obama, the first black POTUS, hasn't done anything to help the blacks to get ahead in this country. Time and time again, new immigrants have passed them by. The theory is because they belong to the Democrat Party who keep them down. They want to promote and incite racial violence in order to create a NWO for themselves and the US.

Michael Schaus - The Racist, Segregationist, Democrat Party is Still Alive and Well

Thanks to Wikileaks, look at Clinton's staff. All whites discussing the black vote.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...-How-to-Exploit-Black-Vote-20161014-0027.html

 

[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.

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.

yes, the commerce clause is usually the route used to allow coercion, the issue is its been extended to things that don't impact overall commerce.

People like me who oppose the use of courts to extend the marriage license do question the reach of "equal". The issue isn't bias, its the concept that such a radical change as allowing two people of the same sex to marry isn't in the same ballpark as allowing two opposite sex people of different races to marry (or preventing said marriage by law). Such radical changes should be made by popular assent, as in the States that changed their marriage licenses by legislative action or referendum, At that point, the Courts can then force other States to recognize out of State marriage licenses as they always have, under both full faith and credit, and equal protection under the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact that you believe certain forms of racism should be legal does not change the fact that you are racist if you exercise that legal right.

 

[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.

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

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

yes, the commerce clause is usually the route used to allow coercion, the issue is its been extended to things that don't impact overall commerce.

People like me who oppose the use of courts to extend the marriage license do question the reach of "equal". The issue isn't bias, its the concept that such a radical change as allowing two people of the same sex to marry isn't in the same ballpark as allowing two opposite sex people of different races to marry (or preventing said marriage by law). Such radical changes should be made by popular assent, as in the States that changed their marriage licenses by legislative action or referendum, At that point, the Courts can then force other States to recognize out of State marriage licenses as they always have, under both full faith and credit, and equal protection under the law.

Okay, so you believe that you should have the right to be racist in your business. That means you're not denying that it's racism,

you're just arguing over whether or not that form of racism should be legal.

 

[martybegan]

[ 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.

No, they were meant to protect economic interests, as well as political interests, not punish someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

A person of color wanting a job is not a trivial matter.

 

[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.

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.

yes, the commerce clause is usually the route used to allow coercion, the issue is its been extended to things that don't impact overall commerce.

People like me who oppose the use of courts to extend the marriage license do question the reach of "equal". The issue isn't bias, its the concept that such a radical change as allowing two people of the same sex to marry isn't in the same ballpark as allowing two opposite sex people of different races to marry (or preventing said marriage by law). Such radical changes should be made by popular assent, as in the States that changed their marriage licenses by legislative action or referendum, At that point, the Courts can then force other States to recognize out of State marriage licenses as they always have, under both full faith and credit, and equal protection under the law.

Okay, so you believe that you should have the right to be racist in your business. That means you're not denying that it's racism,

you're just arguing over whether or not that form of racism should be legal.

I'm arguing that the right to not be discriminated does not automatically trump a persons right to free exercise of religion, right to free speech, and right to association.

The situation has to be analyzed, and the least restrictive method of resolution needs to be implemented if government action is warranted.

 

[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.

No, they were meant to protect economic interests, as well as political interests, not punish someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Denying a person a job because of their skin color is a bit beyond 'hurting their feelings'.

 

[martybegan]

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

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

A person of color wanting a job is not a trivial matter.

Employment discrimination is another topic, one with actual economic impact, and is thus not trivial.

That being said, maybe some jobs can be based on race. Should a hip hop recording studio be forced to hire white people if it doesn't want to?

 

[martybegan]

[ 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.

No, they were meant to protect economic interests, as well as political interests, not punish someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Denying a person a job because of their skin color is a bit beyond 'hurting their feelings'.

Again, a different topic. Stop trying to muddy the waters with off topic discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

yes, the commerce clause is usually the route used to allow coercion, the issue is its been extended to things that don't impact overall commerce.

People like me who oppose the use of courts to extend the marriage license do question the reach of "equal". The issue isn't bias, its the concept that such a radical change as allowing two people of the same sex to marry isn't in the same ballpark as allowing two opposite sex people of different races to marry (or preventing said marriage by law). Such radical changes should be made by popular assent, as in the States that changed their marriage licenses by legislative action or referendum, At that point, the Courts can then force other States to recognize out of State marriage licenses as they always have, under both full faith and credit, and equal protection under the law.

Okay, so you believe that you should have the right to be racist in your business. That means you're not denying that it's racism,

you're just arguing over whether or not that form of racism should be legal.

I'm arguing that the right to not be discriminated does not automatically trump a persons right to free exercise of religion, right to free speech, and right to association.

The situation has to be analyzed, and the least restrictive method of resolution needs to be implemented if government action is warranted.

You're arguing that the Constitution should not protect equal rights. You're arguing that the long list of excuses to discriminate should trump equal rights.

 

[martybegan]

The fact that you believe certain forms of racism should be legal does not change the fact that you are racist if you exercise that legal right.

And?

 

[martybegan]

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.

yes, the commerce clause is usually the route used to allow coercion, the issue is its been extended to things that don't impact overall commerce.

People like me who oppose the use of courts to extend the marriage license do question the reach of "equal". The issue isn't bias, its the concept that such a radical change as allowing two people of the same sex to marry isn't in the same ballpark as allowing two opposite sex people of different races to marry (or preventing said marriage by law). Such radical changes should be made by popular assent, as in the States that changed their marriage licenses by legislative action or referendum, At that point, the Courts can then force other States to recognize out of State marriage licenses as they always have, under both full faith and credit, and equal protection under the law.

Okay, so you believe that you should have the right to be racist in your business. That means you're not denying that it's racism,

you're just arguing over whether or not that form of racism should be legal.

I'm arguing that the right to not be discriminated does not automatically trump a persons right to free exercise of religion, right to free speech, and right to association.

The situation has to be analyzed, and the least restrictive method of resolution needs to be implemented if government action is warranted.

You're arguing that the Constitution should not protect equal rights. You're arguing that the long list of excuses to discriminate should trump equal rights.

Again, where is your right to a cake from a specific baker?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

A person of color wanting a job is not a trivial matter.

Employment discrimination is another topic, one with actual economic impact, and is thus not trivial.

That being said, maybe some jobs can be based on race. Should a hip hop recording studio be forced to hire white people if it doesn't want to?

It's trivial to ban black people from your place of business? From renting your apartment? From going to a certain school?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact that you believe certain forms of racism should be legal does not change the fact that you are racist if you exercise that legal right.

And?

The topic of this thread is racism.

 

[kaz]

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

No shit, and that's a basic point I keep making. Almost no one in business discriminates. Business is hard, most end up failing, we need customers. It is very rare there is discrimination. And when there is the impact is almost negligible is there are bakers on every street corner.

Yet in this quest to stamp out rare and low harm cases, we hand government a MASSIVE power to endlessly regulate and control businesses. That is the actual goal of socialists, government power. There is no cause of action here even if there were the Constitutional authority to do it, which there isn't.

 

[bendog]

I don't see what constitutional power, or personal right under the BoR, leeds to a right to not have a person discriminate against me.

Of course, even Donald Trump gladly rents to blacks .... now.

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

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

A person of color wanting a job is not a trivial matter.

Employment discrimination is another topic, one with actual economic impact, and is thus not trivial.

That being said, maybe some jobs can be based on race. Should a hip hop recording studio be forced to hire white people if it doesn't want to?

It's trivial to ban black people from your place of business? From renting your apartment? From going to a certain school?

The first two are paths to bankuputcy. Something that Donald has much experience with. (-:

I suppose a Church could have a private school that only admitted believers.

 

[kaz]

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

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

A person of color wanting a job is not a trivial matter.

Employment discrimination is another topic, one with actual economic impact, and is thus not trivial.

That being said, maybe some jobs can be based on race. Should a hip hop recording studio be forced to hire white people if it doesn't want to?

Or Hooters hire fat women or men? It's ridiculous. Why shouldn't men be able to try out for women's parts in movies? None of this is a legitimate power of the Federal government