NC has responded to the Feds

[NightFox]

When you come to North Carolina (I live here), it's up to the owner.

So if I own a business I can demand someone prove their gender before I let them into my bathroom?

Of course, why wouldn't you be able to do that? It's your property therefore you are well within your rights as the owner of said property to specify who can use it and how they can use it based on any criteria you see fit to apply.

I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

So what if they do? They'd just be putting themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the market but again it's their property so it's their choice.

 

[daws101]

not this dumbfuck again

Looking in the mirror are we?

 

[alang1216]

I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

So what if they do? They'd just be putting themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the market but again it's their property so it's their choice.

Pleased to meet you Mr. Crow

 

[TNHarley]

Its always funny when people support the Feds going after someone, then cite Jim Crow laws started by the same people you are latching on to

 

[NightFox]

I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

So what if they do? They'd just be putting themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the market but again it's their property so it's their choice.

Pleased to meet you Mr. Crow

Don't worry we'll organize a mission to rescue you from the 1950's, in the meantime perhaps you can make a more cogent moral (or at least constitutional) argument as to where property owners aren't within their rights to determine who, how and under what circumstances others can use it.

"Times have changed in the past thirty years, Tomash. We no longer swill sherry and screw goats for fun anymore." -- Droz, PCU

 

[daws101]

Its always funny when people support the Feds going after someone, then cite Jim Crow laws started by the same people you are latching on to

Link?

 

[TNHarley]

People being bigots is freedom. Why do so many people hate freedom?

 

[daws101]

I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

So what if they do? They'd just be putting themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the market but again it's their property so it's their choice.

Pleased to meet you Mr. Crow

Don't worry we'll organize a mission to rescue you from the 1950's, in the meantime perhaps you can make a more cogent moral (or at least constitutional) argument as to where property owners aren't within their rights to determine who, how and under what circumstances others can use it.

"Times have changed in the past thirty years, Tomash. We no longer swill sherry and screw goats for fun anymore." -- Droz, PCU

Not if the business is open to the public .
Those rights do not superceded public accommodation laws.

 

[daws101]

People being bigots is freedom. Why do so many people hate freedom?

Bigotry is not freedom .it's a prison of ignorance , you fit right in.

 

[NightFox]

People being bigots is freedom. Why do so many people hate freedom?

Seems pretty straightforward, when people are truly free those that want to control and exploit them have a much tougher time of it.

The gub'mint worshipers far prefer slaves to free people even if it means they have to become slaves themselves.

 

[daws101]

People being bigots is freedom. Why do so many people hate freedom?

Seems pretty straightforward, when people are truly free those that want to control and exploit them have a much tougher time of it.

The gub'mint worshipers far prefer slaves to free people even if it means they have to become slaves themselves.

Bahahahaha!

 

[TNHarley]

People being bigots is freedom. Why do so many people hate freedom?

Bigotry is not freedom .it's a prison of ignorance , you fit right in.

so you are saying forced conformity is freedom?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, we're now equating racial bigotry with some freak that thinks he's a woman wanting to whip it out in the ladies room?

That's ridiculous.

 

[NightFox]

I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

So what if they do? They'd just be putting themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the market but again it's their property so it's their choice.

Pleased to meet you Mr. Crow

Don't worry we'll organize a mission to rescue you from the 1950's, in the meantime perhaps you can make a more cogent moral (or at least constitutional) argument as to where property owners aren't within their rights to determine who, how and under what circumstances others can use it.

"Times have changed in the past thirty years, Tomash. We no longer swill sherry and screw goats for fun anymore." -- Droz, PCU

Not if the business is open to the public .
Those rights do not superceded public accommodation laws.

So your argument is that once a the private property owner opens up access to his property to "the public" he no longer owns the property and can no longer specify how others may or may not use it ? Do you have any moral basis to justify such an immoral and authoritarian outlook? Or are we just supposed to docilely accept that the state owns everything in all but name?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm sure no one in NC would abuse that power and apply it to someone's race or ethnicity.

So what if they do? They'd just be putting themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the market but again it's their property so it's their choice.

Pleased to meet you Mr. Crow

Don't worry we'll organize a mission to rescue you from the 1950's, in the meantime perhaps you can make a more cogent moral (or at least constitutional) argument as to where property owners aren't within their rights to determine who, how and under what circumstances others can use it.

"Times have changed in the past thirty years, Tomash. We no longer swill sherry and screw goats for fun anymore." -- Droz, PCU

Not if the business is open to the public .
Those rights do not superceded public accommodation laws.

So your argument is that once a the private property owner opens up access to his property to "the public" he no longer owns the property and can no longer specify how others may or may not use it ? Do you have any moral basis to justify such an immoral and authoritarian outlook? Or are we just supposed to docilely accept that the state owns everything in all but name?

Yep, pretty much.

 

[alang1216]

Don't worry we'll organize a mission to rescue you from the 1950's, in the meantime perhaps you can make a more cogent moral (or at least constitutional) argument as to where property owners aren't within their rights to determine who, how and under what circumstances others can use it.

I learned a lot from the '50s and I like to think has evolved since then. But then I encounter people who miss those glory days when it was good to be a straight, male WASP.

The bathroom in your home is yours to control but if you run a business there are laws that limit who you can refuse to serve. Laws that were needed at the time and are still needed since we, as a country, tend to forget our history.

 

[SwimExpert]

Republicans bring the fight to the toilet! How incredibly awesome this is.

even more awesome that TNH is enraptured in the fight...

A fight to the death between state government morons and federal government morons is wholesome fun for the whole fucking family.

 

[SwimExpert]

Science supports them .
Damn you're ignorant.

No, it doesn't. But that's okay.

 

[alang1216]

So your argument is that once a the private property owner opens up access to his property to "the public" he no longer owns the property and can no longer specify how others may or may not use it ? Do you have any moral basis to justify such an immoral and authoritarian outlook? Or are we just supposed to docilely accept that the state owns everything in all but name?

Private property rights are granted by the government. Always have been, always will be. If the government recognizes your right to a piece of property or a business others can't take those rights without going the government. The government limits your rights, there are some things you can't do with your property, e.g. nuclear waste that would impact other properties, and, through eminent domain can take your property.

 

[SwimExpert]

Private property rights are granted by the government. Always have been, always will be.