CDZ Liberty

[Natural Citizen]

"I've never been a fan of institutionalized equality."

Should we not as individuals and as a society try to treat others fairly and impartially? Is it right to apply the Golden Rule to some but not all? Is it okay to treat some like shit and others not? Why isn't equality under the law a good idea, that's institutional equality, no?

There's no such thing as true equality in the workplace. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to treat everyone with the same dignity and respect.

Some people are simply more naturally gifted than others. Or more qualified.Some carry themselves well while other do not. So what? Do the less gifted or qualified deserve to be treated differently?

Here's the thing - human nature being what it is, if you do not have laws that protect the rights and liberties of everyone then you will have some people who are abused and mistreated. A civil society should not allow that to happen, in so far as is possible.

I'm not opposed to equality in opportunity. The notion of universal equality through manufactured means is quite another phenomenon, however. Should standards of success be lowered in order to placate the least skilled people and to encourage artificial equivalence? I disagree that they should be lowered. My view on it is that rewarding people for mediocrity while punishing other people for success just because they don't belong to a designated victim status group is the very nature of treating people differently.

I've always maintained that indeed the proper role of government is to protect Individual liberty. So we agree there. It is not the role of government to placate group claims, however. The latter will only impede Individual liberties under the disguise of equality. All that will accomplish is that we'll see even more claims of oppression from victim status groups and the erosion of Individual liberties will ultimately be never-ending.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The reality is this. Whenever we hear or read phrases like women's rights or gay rights or any other rights of a given designated victim status group this is the very act of asking for special treatment.

There are no such things as gay right. Or women's rights. There are only Individual rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"I've never been a fan of institutionalized equality."

Should we not as individuals and as a society try to treat others fairly and impartially? Is it right to apply the Golden Rule to some but not all? Is it okay to treat some like shit and others not? Why isn't equality under the law a good idea, that's institutional equality, no?

There's no such thing as true equality in the workplace. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to treat everyone with the same dignity and respect.

Some people are simply more naturally gifted than others. Or more qualified.Some carry themselves well while other do not. So what? Do the less gifted or qualified deserve to be treated differently?

Here's the thing - human nature being what it is, if you do not have laws that protect the rights and liberties of everyone then you will have some people who are abused and mistreated. A civil society should not allow that to happen, in so far as is possible.

Who does and does not get a given job has zilch to do with equality. If we want to treat everyone equally, then the kid with autism doesn't catch a break. He's "equal." Your idea of fair and my idea of fair are world's apart. That is why companies, communities, and different kinds of groups all have their own standards and expectations.

In Georgia, nobody bitched when the Stockbridge City Council is all black. OTOH, the small town of Hoschton is recalling its politicians over "racially charged" comments:

Stockbridge seats all-black council

Hoschton recall petition can move forward, judge rules

I guess the whites have to sit out that First Amendment thing and play that word game so as to make their form of discrimination palatable to the masses. The fact is you cannot get an all black city council unless discrimination is taking place. But, only whites can be racists (NOT) and I see discrimination taking place all around me. It is the natural order of things.

It is unnatural to force people to pretend to be equal and it is wrong to force private entities to embrace your ideology. BTW, I was once in Chinatown in San Francisco. I doubt anyone has ever tried to tell them about this need to force equality on every human being.

 

[Gdjjr]

I believe that equality under the law is a good thing, but shouldn't equality in the marketplace be as well? Should we have the liberty to treat someone as a 2nd-class citizen for whatever reason? I'm not sure we are better off as a society if that is the case.

How is it determined someone is treated as second class?

You want the freedom to discriminate, right? Treat people differently, right? Some better than others, right? I.E., some get 1st class treatment, some 2nd, some 3rd, right?

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

Read A2.

It clearly and plainly says the right of the "people", not the right of the militia.

Most Persons clearly understand the People are the Militia. It does not say the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

The militia is only a part of this issue. I served five consecutive terms as the Commanding Officer of what was the largest and is the oldest civilian militia in the United States. We recruited more people into the militia than all the other civilian militias combined!

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no such Thing as any well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.

 

[task0778]

I believe that equality under the law is a good thing, but shouldn't equality in the marketplace be as well? Should we have the liberty to treat someone as a 2nd-class citizen for whatever reason? I'm not sure we are better off as a society if that is the case.

How is it determined someone is treated as second class?

You want the freedom to discriminate, right? Treat people differently, right? Some better than others, right? I.E., some get 1st class treatment, some 2nd, some 3rd, right?

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

We're not talking gov't here, we're talking about the absence of gov't law and regulations, where an individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants, including discriminating against whoever they choose and for whatever reason. A person walks into your store and you don't like something about him/her, you want to be able to tell the person to leave, no service, right? Or hire/fire whoever you please for whatever reason or no reason other than personal preference, right? You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

 

[task0778]

The reality is this. Whenever we hear or read phrases like women's rights or gay rights or any other rights of a given designated victim status group this is the very act of asking for special treatment.

There are no such things as gay right. Or women's rights. There are only Individual rights.

Individual rights, IOW the right to be treated the same as everyone else. You call it special treatment, others might call it equal treatment. I'm not in favor of special treatment where someone gets preferential treatment, but I do not support the right of any individual to deny equal treatment either.

Which brings to the issue of religious freedom, and the Colorado cake-baker. I do think there are instances where your right to practice your religious belief can conflict with someone else's right to equal treatment in a public business. It's kinda difficult to balance this right against that one, but in this case since there are 50 others cake-bakers within a mile or 2, then I tell the gay couple to STFU and go somewhere else. Case-by-case basis, I guess.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when it is about the security of our free States or the Union.

Read A2.

It clearly and plainly says the right of the "people", not the right of the militia.

Most Persons clearly understand the People are the Militia. It does not say the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

The militia is only a part of this issue. I served five consecutive terms as the Commanding Officer of what was the largest and is the oldest civilian militia in the United States. We recruited more people into the militia than all the other civilian militias combined!

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no such Thing as any well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.

PART 1 OF 3 PARTS - JUST FOR DANIELPALOS

You are the one who has no idea what this militia thing is all about. You are the one addressing a man who was elected in five consecutive elections to be a Commanding Officer of a militia that the state recognized had a right to exist.

What you believe, danielpalos, is nonsensical. Your argument has been that there is a state run militia and that constitutes the lawful militia. You are constantly hijacking threads to argue this stuff, so, let's get to the bottom line of all bottom lines.

After many meetings over a period of many years a group of 56 men signed a document that Thomas Jefferson stated was the Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man. You know it as the Declaration of Independence. That document outlined what those men believed to be the natural, God given, unalienable, inherent, irrevocable, absolute Rights that were above the reach of government. That document also puts forth the position that when a government becomes destructive to the ends of Liberty, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it. It is the Right of the people, ultimately, to decide the fate of government. The position you've put forth in the THOUSANDS of posts you and I disagree over is that you think a state run militia has the final say. It does not.

This DOES NOT MEAN that man is not supposed to be governed by a government. He is. But, we are to governed by people that recognize the limitations of their authority. If they don't, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it. If we take the position you have tried to convey, there would be NO United States of America. Allow me to quote a few excerpts from the book, The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel:

"When does tyranny become tyranny? Is there a time when it is not only morally correct but the will of God for one to resist legally constituted authority? When does the "Lord's anointed" lose his anointing? When did it become God's will for America to throw off the yoke of Britain? Was it God's will at all?

Of all the questions we faced, the last was the one we dreaded the most. For a strong case could be made against America's ever having come out from the mother country's authority. If God did intend this land to be the new Israel, then each major step in the implementation of this plan would have to conform to His righteousness. A holy end, no matter how sublime, could never justify unholy means.

The more we debated this, the more mired down we became. So we prayed to be shown the way out of this mental swamp. And that same morning in Florida in which we had been unable to discern the true nature of the Puritan's call, the Holy Spirit went on to show us why America had to resist - why, for them to do anything less would have been the greatest disobedience. This part of the revelation began with a verse of Scripture coming to Peter's mind, which when we looked up, was Galatians 5 :1, and which proved to be they key to: all that followed:

For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (continued)

 

[Porter Rockwell]

PART 2 OF 3 PARTS - JUST FOR DANIELPALOS

Among the men who signed the Declaration of Independence was John Adams. He served as the second president of the United States. On the issue of Rights, Adams once stated:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."

If you go back and reread post # 1, I carefully laid out the interpretations of the courts that ruled what Liberty means and the role of government and such rulings are consistent with what the founders / framers expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States as originally written and intended. You and I realize I can give you 1000 indisputable quotes about the way the founders / framers viewed Liberty. I'll stop with just two:

"Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse."

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

Both quotes were made by Patrick Henry

The final post is next

 

[Porter Rockwell]

PART 3 OF 3 PARTS - JUST FOR DANIELPALOS

danielpalos, what you would have people to believe is that only a state run militia is what enforces your Right to Liberty. But, the problem is and always will be for your belief is that you want to make us believe that the founders / framers hogtied their posterity so as to have the state government determine the Liberties of the people.

In your rationale, there never will be a time when the people have a Right to abolish a tyrannical government. The fact that only 56 people began this country ought to tell you that the founders / framers did not believe in democracy. When the War of Independence began, a maximum of 5 to 6 percent of the colonists supported our separation from King George.

It has been shown to you time and time and time again that the Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT dependent upon the state government. This is a STATE SUPREME court ruling refuting the position that you feel compelled to force into every thread I participate on:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

danielpalos, these are not my words. They are a state supreme court disagreeing with your characterizations. You are no longer arguing with me, but rather with the states who refute your position.

In the beginning of the idea that states ought to have a militia, they had some problems. The founders did not believe in standing armies AND they did not believe in Select Militias. To top it off, despite many tries at having men show up for muster every so often, it never seemed to pan out. The issue was best resolved by Hamilton, who said:

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Here is another quote for you:

"American colonists were barely 12 years removed from the French and Indian wars (1754-1763), but close enough to a new conflict to begin thinking about the necessity for building a store of weapons. Those who served in militias in that earlier war had furnished their own weapons." Revolutionary War Weapons

We've dealt with your presuppositions. No, danielpalos, your Liberty and your Rights are NOT secured in any state constitution. That position was refuted in court rulings many times in the earliest courts during the lives of the founders / framers. You were born with unalienable Rights that preexisted before the government was formed. If anyone had an inkling that government was going to advocate the position you've taken, the United States would not exist. There would be no point because, if I am reading you correctly, no group of citizens can resist tyranny. That is nonsense. The founders / framers would not put us in the position they were in when they fled the oppression of Britain. What you're promoting doesn't make any sense. Now, maybe we can get back to the subject at hand.

 

[danielpalos]

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

The Militia of the United States is clearly defined.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I believe that equality under the law is a good thing, but shouldn't equality in the marketplace be as well? Should we have the liberty to treat someone as a 2nd-class citizen for whatever reason? I'm not sure we are better off as a society if that is the case.

How is it determined someone is treated as second class?

You want the freedom to discriminate, right? Treat people differently, right? Some better than others, right? I.E., some get 1st class treatment, some 2nd, some 3rd, right?

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

We're not talking gov't here, we're talking about the absence of gov't law and regulations, where an individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants, including discriminating against whoever they choose and for whatever reason. A person walks into your store and you don't like something about him/her, you want to be able to tell the person to leave, no service, right? Or hire/fire whoever you please for whatever reason or no reason other than personal preference, right? You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Are you having a problem with an individual's Right to say no? So, okay, a group of Nazis wants to have a birthday bash at your restaurant. They will be in their Nazi uniforms and they will have a cake with a swastika on top of it. They will even sing their songs in your banquet room and other patrons are going to see these people.

Think about that scenario. This is your restaurant. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now, you've got to rent these people the space in your restaurant and I'm here to enforce that law of equality. Would you have a problem with that?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

The Militia of the United States is clearly defined.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized.

Good God!!! What in the Hell, danielpalos? Are you going to destroy this thread too after I asked you politely not to? I have set you straight on this so many times that it makes me want to scream it out. It has been asked and answered.

I quoted Alexander Hamilton for you. The well regulated part has been addressed by the founders / framers. Since you can't understand plain English, let's do it again one at a time:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Composition of the militia is the body of the people. In the statute you cite, it defines what the unorganized militia is. There is NO requirement that the unorganized militia become organized. The Second Amendment refutes your position that a militia is unnecessary, so take that up with your federal legislators and leave me alone. And, insofar as how to best regulate the militia, let the founders respond:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

So, if you want to help fulfill the objective of having the youth properly trained (think well regulated), start thinking about lobbying your state to teach firearms use, safety, and marksmanship in the public school curriculum.

 

[task0778]

I believe that equality under the law is a good thing, but shouldn't equality in the marketplace be as well? Should we have the liberty to treat someone as a 2nd-class citizen for whatever reason? I'm not sure we are better off as a society if that is the case.

How is it determined someone is treated as second class?

You want the freedom to discriminate, right? Treat people differently, right? Some better than others, right? I.E., some get 1st class treatment, some 2nd, some 3rd, right?

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

We're not talking gov't here, we're talking about the absence of gov't law and regulations, where an individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants, including discriminating against whoever they choose and for whatever reason. A person walks into your store and you don't like something about him/her, you want to be able to tell the person to leave, no service, right? Or hire/fire whoever you please for whatever reason or no reason other than personal preference, right? You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Are you having a problem with an individual's Right to say no? So, okay, a group of Nazis wants to have a birthday bash at your restaurant. They will be in their Nazi uniforms and they will have a cake with a swastika on top of it. They will even sing their songs in your banquet room and other patrons are going to see these people.

Think about that scenario. This is your restaurant. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now, you've got to rent these people the space in your restaurant and I'm here to enforce that law of equality. Would you have a problem with that?

Yeah, I got a problem with an individual's right to say no. Do you recall the dust-up awhile back about the restaurant in Virginia that denied service to Sarah Huckabee cuz she was Trump's press secretary? I thought that was wrong, still do. Legal apparently, no law against it but morally wrong because the restaurant owner discriminated against somebody without just cause. It is my opinion that the right to say no ought to be based on just cause, a legitimate reason should be the foundation for denial of service. If no good reason exists and someone is denied service for any reason or no reason, then we are back to the days of de facto segregation only a lot worse. Each individual would then have the ability to define for themselves who is acceptable and who isn't; human nature being what it is, some individuals and groups are going to be abused or mistreated with no legal recourse. If you think this nation is divided now, such a scenario would make things a lot worse. Did you like the civil rights riots back in the 70s? I don't think most of us would want such a society as you desire.

Back to the Nazis, I'd probably check with the District Attorney's office and find out how the law reads in this situation. What can I do or not do under the law. How many of them are there? If I can, I require the Nazis to rent out the entire restaurant for their private occasion, so there are no other patrons present to be disturbed or annoyed. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say what the current laws require. I wouldn't like it, but I'm not too thrilled with the idea of denying someone else their liberty without just cause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How is it determined someone is treated as second class?

You want the freedom to discriminate, right? Treat people differently, right? Some better than others, right? I.E., some get 1st class treatment, some 2nd, some 3rd, right?

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

We're not talking gov't here, we're talking about the absence of gov't law and regulations, where an individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants, including discriminating against whoever they choose and for whatever reason. A person walks into your store and you don't like something about him/her, you want to be able to tell the person to leave, no service, right? Or hire/fire whoever you please for whatever reason or no reason other than personal preference, right? You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Are you having a problem with an individual's Right to say no? So, okay, a group of Nazis wants to have a birthday bash at your restaurant. They will be in their Nazi uniforms and they will have a cake with a swastika on top of it. They will even sing their songs in your banquet room and other patrons are going to see these people.

Think about that scenario. This is your restaurant. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now, you've got to rent these people the space in your restaurant and I'm here to enforce that law of equality. Would you have a problem with that?

Yeah, I got a problem with an individual's right to say no. Do you recall the dust-up awhile back about the restaurant in Virginia that denied service to Sarah Huckabee cuz she was Trump's press secretary? I thought that was wrong, still do. Legal apparently, no law against it but morally wrong because the restaurant owner discriminated against somebody without just cause. It is my opinion that the right to say no ought to be based on just cause, a legitimate reason should be the foundation for denial of service. If no good reason exists and someone is denied service for any reason or no reason, then we are back to the days of de facto segregation only a lot worse. Each individual would then have the ability to define for themselves who is acceptable and who isn't; human nature being what it is, some individuals and groups are going to be abused or mistreated with no legal recourse. If you think this nation is divided now, such a scenario would make things a lot worse. Did you like the civil rights riots back in the 70s? I don't think most of us would want such a society as you desire.

Back to the Nazis, I'd probably check with the District Attorney's office and find out how the law reads in this situation. What can I do or not do under the law. How many of them are there? If I can, I require the Nazis to rent out the entire restaurant for their private occasion, so there are no other patrons present to be disturbed or annoyed. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say what the current laws require. I wouldn't like it, but I'm not too thrilled with the idea of denying someone else their liberty without just cause.

So, despite your bluster, you're going to check to see what legal tap dancing you can do to discriminate against the Nazis. You don't want to serve them. If you were consistent, you would have stated, without hesitation, "yes I would support their Rights."

No, just like everyone else you limit your diversity to those who you agree with and / or have no feelings toward. I'm going to tell you a little secret and you're really really not going to like it:

You have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain political stimuli. As such, you cannot think objectively. You see these people run around, making the arguments you do, and ultimately, we get to the meat and potatoes of your real objection.

You are now saying that segregation is wrong. But you really don't believe that. Because the conditioning is so great, you will tap dance around the real issues, but let us be honest. If I were to come to your house and take everything out that was made in a country made up of a homogeneous people, and donate that stuff to a Goodwill store, Salvation Army or some other nonprofit - then you would be down to almost bare walls.

Most of what you own, inside your house, was made in China, Japan, or maybe North Korea. Over 91 percent of China's population are Han Chinese; according to The World Factbook, North Korea is racially homogeneous and contains a small Chinese community and a few ethnic Japanese. The 2008 census listed two nationalities: Korean (99.998%) and Other (0.002%). Japan claims to the most racially pure country in the world. So, if you believe as you claim, how come most of what you purchase comes from "racist" countries?

By your wallet, you state what you really really believe in. We've been fed this hogwash that we're all about diversity and so forth, but those who promote that political canard end up using it to condemn America for segregation. Meanwhile, you buy most of what you have from countries that are not trying to force a melting pot agenda on their citizenry. Hmmmmm....

 

[task0778]

You want the freedom to discriminate, right? Treat people differently, right? Some better than others, right? I.E., some get 1st class treatment, some 2nd, some 3rd, right?

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

We're not talking gov't here, we're talking about the absence of gov't law and regulations, where an individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants, including discriminating against whoever they choose and for whatever reason. A person walks into your store and you don't like something about him/her, you want to be able to tell the person to leave, no service, right? Or hire/fire whoever you please for whatever reason or no reason other than personal preference, right? You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Are you having a problem with an individual's Right to say no? So, okay, a group of Nazis wants to have a birthday bash at your restaurant. They will be in their Nazi uniforms and they will have a cake with a swastika on top of it. They will even sing their songs in your banquet room and other patrons are going to see these people.

Think about that scenario. This is your restaurant. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now, you've got to rent these people the space in your restaurant and I'm here to enforce that law of equality. Would you have a problem with that?

Yeah, I got a problem with an individual's right to say no. Do you recall the dust-up awhile back about the restaurant in Virginia that denied service to Sarah Huckabee cuz she was Trump's press secretary? I thought that was wrong, still do. Legal apparently, no law against it but morally wrong because the restaurant owner discriminated against somebody without just cause. It is my opinion that the right to say no ought to be based on just cause, a legitimate reason should be the foundation for denial of service. If no good reason exists and someone is denied service for any reason or no reason, then we are back to the days of de facto segregation only a lot worse. Each individual would then have the ability to define for themselves who is acceptable and who isn't; human nature being what it is, some individuals and groups are going to be abused or mistreated with no legal recourse. If you think this nation is divided now, such a scenario would make things a lot worse. Did you like the civil rights riots back in the 70s? I don't think most of us would want such a society as you desire.

Back to the Nazis, I'd probably check with the District Attorney's office and find out how the law reads in this situation. What can I do or not do under the law. How many of them are there? If I can, I require the Nazis to rent out the entire restaurant for their private occasion, so there are no other patrons present to be disturbed or annoyed. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say what the current laws require. I wouldn't like it, but I'm not too thrilled with the idea of denying someone else their liberty without just cause.

So, despite your bluster, you're going to check to see what legal tap dancing you can do to discriminate against the Nazis. You don't want to serve them. If you were consistent, you would have stated, without hesitation, "yes I would support their Rights."

No, just like everyone else you limit your diversity to those who you agree with and / or have no feelings toward. I'm going to tell you a little secret and you're really really not going to like it:

You have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain political stimuli. As such, you cannot think objectively. You see these people run around, making the arguments you do, and ultimately, we get to the meat and potatoes of your real objection.

You are now saying that segregation is wrong. But you really don't believe that. Because the conditioning is so great, you will tap dance around the real issues, but let us be honest. If I were to come to your house and take everything out that was made in a country made up of a homogeneous people, and donate that stuff to a Goodwill store, Salvation Army or some other nonprofit - then you would be down to almost bare walls.

Most of what you own, inside your house, was made in China, Japan, or maybe North Korea. Over 91 percent of China's population are Han Chinese; according to The World Factbook, North Korea is racially homogeneous and contains a small Chinese community and a few ethnic Japanese. The 2008 census listed two nationalities: Korean (99.998%) and Other (0.002%). Japan claims to the most racially pure country in the world. So, if you believe as you claim, how come most of what you purchase comes from "racist" countries?

By your wallet, you state what you really really believe in. We've been fed this hogwash that we're all about diversity and so forth, but those who promote that political canard end up using it to condemn America for segregation. Meanwhile, you buy most of what you have from countries that are not trying to force a melting pot agenda on their citizenry. Hmmmmm....

Total hogwash. Personal attack instead of addressing what I said. Must be nice to know what others are thinking, ESP? Enough nonsense, conversation with you is over. Have a nice day.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

How is that determined? That they are is not the question.

We're not talking gov't here, we're talking about the absence of gov't law and regulations, where an individual has the liberty to do what he/she wants, including discriminating against whoever they choose and for whatever reason. A person walks into your store and you don't like something about him/her, you want to be able to tell the person to leave, no service, right? Or hire/fire whoever you please for whatever reason or no reason other than personal preference, right? You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Are you having a problem with an individual's Right to say no? So, okay, a group of Nazis wants to have a birthday bash at your restaurant. They will be in their Nazi uniforms and they will have a cake with a swastika on top of it. They will even sing their songs in your banquet room and other patrons are going to see these people.

Think about that scenario. This is your restaurant. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now, you've got to rent these people the space in your restaurant and I'm here to enforce that law of equality. Would you have a problem with that?

Yeah, I got a problem with an individual's right to say no. Do you recall the dust-up awhile back about the restaurant in Virginia that denied service to Sarah Huckabee cuz she was Trump's press secretary? I thought that was wrong, still do. Legal apparently, no law against it but morally wrong because the restaurant owner discriminated against somebody without just cause. It is my opinion that the right to say no ought to be based on just cause, a legitimate reason should be the foundation for denial of service. If no good reason exists and someone is denied service for any reason or no reason, then we are back to the days of de facto segregation only a lot worse. Each individual would then have the ability to define for themselves who is acceptable and who isn't; human nature being what it is, some individuals and groups are going to be abused or mistreated with no legal recourse. If you think this nation is divided now, such a scenario would make things a lot worse. Did you like the civil rights riots back in the 70s? I don't think most of us would want such a society as you desire.

Back to the Nazis, I'd probably check with the District Attorney's office and find out how the law reads in this situation. What can I do or not do under the law. How many of them are there? If I can, I require the Nazis to rent out the entire restaurant for their private occasion, so there are no other patrons present to be disturbed or annoyed. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say what the current laws require. I wouldn't like it, but I'm not too thrilled with the idea of denying someone else their liberty without just cause.

So, despite your bluster, you're going to check to see what legal tap dancing you can do to discriminate against the Nazis. You don't want to serve them. If you were consistent, you would have stated, without hesitation, "yes I would support their Rights."

No, just like everyone else you limit your diversity to those who you agree with and / or have no feelings toward. I'm going to tell you a little secret and you're really really not going to like it:

You have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain political stimuli. As such, you cannot think objectively. You see these people run around, making the arguments you do, and ultimately, we get to the meat and potatoes of your real objection.

You are now saying that segregation is wrong. But you really don't believe that. Because the conditioning is so great, you will tap dance around the real issues, but let us be honest. If I were to come to your house and take everything out that was made in a country made up of a homogeneous people, and donate that stuff to a Goodwill store, Salvation Army or some other nonprofit - then you would be down to almost bare walls.

Most of what you own, inside your house, was made in China, Japan, or maybe North Korea. Over 91 percent of China's population are Han Chinese; according to The World Factbook, North Korea is racially homogeneous and contains a small Chinese community and a few ethnic Japanese. The 2008 census listed two nationalities: Korean (99.998%) and Other (0.002%). Japan claims to the most racially pure country in the world. So, if you believe as you claim, how come most of what you purchase comes from "racist" countries?

By your wallet, you state what you really really believe in. We've been fed this hogwash that we're all about diversity and so forth, but those who promote that political canard end up using it to condemn America for segregation. Meanwhile, you buy most of what you have from countries that are not trying to force a melting pot agenda on their citizenry. Hmmmmm....

Total hogwash. Personal attack instead of addressing what I said. Must be nice to know what others are thinking, ESP? Enough nonsense, conversation with you is over. Have a nice day.

There was no personal attack. You told us what you were thinking. I simply rephrased what you had said.

So, do you shop at Walmart? Do you deliberately pay more for Made in USA marked products? OR do you simply shop by price and product name? How many letters have you written to legislators to get them to stop doing business with Japan, China, and / or North Korea? Did you organize any kind of boycott from products coming from countries where the citizenry is homogeneous?

Did you not tell me that you would check with an attorney on how to proceed if you had a restaurant and a group of Nazis wanting to hold an event there?

Do you think you are smarter than the thousands upon thousands of social engineers that work every day to condition the public to think the same way about some issues so as to get people to chant the same mantra? If you are going to proclaim a belief, should you not be willing to be consistent and without hesitation? Don't you believe that by doing business with countries that, across the board, disagree with you, you end up supporting the belief by allowing those people to profit from your wallet or purse?

Where do you see "total hogwash" or was that too close to home? Do you think it requires ESP to listen to someone and how their discussion is nuanced in order to understand what they're really saying? If so, how do you account for psychologists who do that for a living? What about people in sales that know how to read body language and the words and phrases that let the salesman know how to proceed in their sales presentation?

Did you really see a personal attack or did you realize that someone really understands you? Are you afraid to really delve into what you believe in as opposed to what you've been programmed to think? How, exactly, am I personally attacking you?

 

[Gdjjr]

. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?

Yep- I haven't seen that enumerated power in the constitution. Can you point it out for me?

 

[Gdjjr]

I do think there are instances where your right to practice your religious belief can conflict with someone else's right to equal treatment in a public business.

It was a *privately* owned bakery.

 

[Gdjjr]

You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen.

No, you're assuming second class- I consider it my choice whom to *serve*- choice is the most basic of rights.
If you, or someone else doesn't like the fact "I discriminate" in MY store, you are free to shop elsewhere. In fact, I think it would be a great idea if a sign were posted who *won't* be served. That way the market (consumers) could make the choice vs "we have to do something" making citizens who have committed no harm criminals.