NC has responded to the Feds

[NightFox]

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.

It doesn't appear that you've learned anything, since the Jim Crow that you pointed to was a construct of the state too, it was created by dickhead politicians putting words onto paper and calling them "laws" and then enforcing them at the point of a government gun. It wasn't until people recognized the IMMORALITY of such laws that they were done away with, now some people that like to preach about the IMMORALITY of institutional racism cannot come up with any shred of a MORAL justification for what's in effect the state stealing the rights of private property owners just because they happen to have made the choice to conduct voluntary exchange with/on that property.

You appear to have a very selective moral compass which is a common problem among those that have ceded control of it to the state.

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.

Words on a piece of paper do not make something morally justified, do we need to run down the history of the immorality that has been born from "laws" ? Let's start with that institution commonly known as slavery that was created and maintained via "laws" and go from there.

 

[Valerie]

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

the NC governor's reaction to a harmless Charlotte ordinance is sad, stupid and totally unnecessary.

please choose your state leadership wisely, America...

 

[SwimExpert]

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

the NC governor's reaction to a harmless Charlotte ordinance is sad, stupid and totally unnecessary.

please choose your state leadership wisely, America...

 

[alang1216]

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

What are 'Property Rights'
Laws created by governments in regards to how individuals can control, benefit from and transfer property. Economic theory contends that government enforcement of strong property rights is a determinant regarding the level of economic success seen in the area. Individuals will create new forms of property to generate wealth, only when they are assured that their rights to their property will protect them against unjust and/or unlawful actions by other parties.



Read more: Property Rights Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp#ixzz48GfBmWBN

 

[pwjohn]

and they are suing the Justice Dept.
Waiting for a link
It is breaking on reuters

Is there any recent, local ( statewide ) polling out there on where the residents stand on this nonsense ?

yes. I think I posted it on page 4. NC residents by a majority support the law.

I couldn't find any online local polling for the issue but I suspect that polling for the governors race coming up in North Carolina tells a different story.

The States Attorney General who refused to defend the new bathroom law is now running 10 points ahead of the governor who stupidly signed the legislation into law. Prior to that they were running pretty much neck & neck

 

[TNHarley]

and they are suing the Justice Dept.
Waiting for a link
It is breaking on reuters

Is there any recent, local ( statewide ) polling out there on where the residents stand on this nonsense ?

yes. I think I posted it on page 4. NC residents by a majority support the law.

I couldn't find any online local polling for the issue but I suspect that polling for the governors race coming up in North Carolina tells a different story.

The States Attorney General who refused to defend the new bathroom law is now running 10 points ahead of the governor who stupidly signed the legislation into law. Prior to that they were running pretty much neck & neck

page 5 sorry
Poll: 51 percent support legislature overturning Charlotte bathroom provision

 

[Silhouette]

I couldn't find any online local polling for the issue but I suspect that polling for the governors race coming up in North Carolina tells a different story.

The States Attorney General who refused to defend the new bathroom law is now running 10 points ahead of the governor who stupidly signed the legislation into law. Prior to that they were running pretty much neck & neck

Yes, I'm sure a Governor who promises to keep weird/rogue men out of the women's restroom will be a huge turnoff to women voters in North Carolina...and their husbands and boyfriends and parents... It's possible the Governor has a brain and knows this is sarcasm. It's possible the Governor knows the actual lack of support behind the LGBT cult in his state. You can threaten and blackmail until the cows come home but you cannot control those voters on the day they actually step behind the curtain and cast their vote. They know what time it is on Crazy Street..

 

[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.

so you are saying forced conformity is freedom?

No but you are if you realize it or not.

 

[NightFox]

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

What are 'Property Rights'
Laws created by governments in regards to how individuals can control, benefit from and transfer property. Economic theory contends that government enforcement of strong property rights is a determinant regarding the level of economic success seen in the area. Individuals will create new forms of property to generate wealth, only when they are assured that their rights to their property will protect them against unjust and/or unlawful actions by other parties.



Read more: Property Rights Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp#ixzz48GfBmWBN

Your investopedia definition presupposes that government proceeded property rights (a common logical fallacy advanced by statists) when in fact one of the major reasons man created government was to PROTECT his property rights (along with his life and liberty) through mutual cooperation.

As Rothbard put it property rights are human rights: Human Rights are Property Rights | Murray N. Rothbard

If you aren't interested in reading the whole article here's where the main point is defined:

"The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man’s inalienable property right over his own being; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man’s right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself."

Or as another set of author(s) put it (Jefferson with the help of Adams and Franklin):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," -- The Declaration of Independence (note "pursuit of happiness" is the reference to private property)

 

[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.

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?

It's not an argument its the law.
This thread is not about morality (not your version of it anyway) if it were your version of morality is in no way moral.
Fail.

 

[daws101]

Science supports them .
Damn you're ignorant.

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

Yes it does.

 

[alang1216]

It doesn't appear that you've learned anything, since the Jim Crow that you pointed to was a construct of the state too, it was created by dickhead politicians putting words onto paper and calling them "laws" and then enforcing them at the point of a government gun. It wasn't until people recognized the IMMORALITY of such laws that they were done away with, now some people that like to preach about the IMMORALITY of institutional racism cannot come up with any shred of a MORAL justification for what's in effect the state stealing the rights of private property owners just because they happen to have made the choice to conduct voluntary exchange with/on that property.

Laws are neither moral or immoral, they merely reflect the morality of the society that enacted them. The justification for the state "stealing the rights of private property owners" is that the state provides the rights it chooses and can limit them as it sees fit. Is there anyone who believes that private property owners should be able to do anything they want, even if it impacts the rights of others? Only the state or a shotgun can balance the two.

You appear to have a very selective moral compass which is a common problem among those that have ceded control of it to the state.

Your problem is that you've ceded control of the state. As I see it, we, as a society, are the state so there is no such thing as ceding control to the state.[/QUOTE]

 

[SwimExpert]

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

What are 'Property Rights'
Laws created by governments in regards to how individuals can control, benefit from and transfer property. Economic theory contends that government enforcement of strong property rights is a determinant regarding the level of economic success seen in the area. Individuals will create new forms of property to generate wealth, only when they are assured that their rights to their property will protect them against unjust and/or unlawful actions by other parties.



Read more: Property Rights Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp#ixzz48GfBmWBN

Well, at least you gave a link when asked. Kudos to that.

Unfortunately, your source is pretty much bunk, and doesn't seem to understand what 'property rights' actually is. The concept of property rights is a belief that various things can be owned by an individual, who alone has exclusive jurisdiction to their value or product. Locke is most often cited as best articulating the concept, who saw it as a fundamental natural right.

Thus, whether not you are allowed to use your knife to murder your neighbor is not a question of whether your property rights are being infringed upon. Murder prohibitions infringe upon behaviors. The knife still belongs to you, and therefore no infringement upon your property rights occurs.

 

[daws101]

I couldn't find any online local polling for the issue but I suspect that polling for the governors race coming up in North Carolina tells a different story.

The States Attorney General who refused to defend the new bathroom law is now running 10 points ahead of the governor who stupidly signed the legislation into law. Prior to that they were running pretty much neck & neck

Yes, I'm sure a Governor who promises to keep weird/rogue men out of the women's restroom will be a huge turnoff to women voters in North Carolina...and their husbands and boyfriends and parents... It's possible the Governor has a brain and knows this is sarcasm. It's possible the Governor knows the actual lack of support behind the LGBT cult in his state. You can threaten and blackmail until the cows come home but you cannot control those voters on the day they actually step behind the curtain and cast their vote. They know what time it is on Crazy Street..

Says the mayor of crazyville.

 

[SwimExpert]

Science supports them .
Damn you're ignorant.

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

Yes it does.

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

 

[daws101]

Science supports them .
Damn you're ignorant.

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

Yes it does.

No. Sorry, you've been lied to with invented pseudo science.

False ! Nice dodge though

 

[SwimExpert]

Your investopedia definition presupposes that government proceeded property rights

Bingo. Possession of property predates governments.

 

[daws101]

Your investopedia definition presupposes that government proceeded property rights

Bingo. Possession of property predates governments.

True, but meaningless.

 

[pwjohn]

I couldn't find any online local polling for the issue but I suspect that polling for the governors race coming up in North Carolina tells a different story.

The States Attorney General who refused to defend the new bathroom law is now running 10 points ahead of the governor who stupidly signed the legislation into law. Prior to that they were running pretty much neck & neck

Yes, I'm sure a Governor who promises to keep weird/rogue men out of the women's restroom will be a huge turnoff to women voters in North Carolina...and their husbands and boyfriends and parents... It's possible the Governor has a brain and knows this is sarcasm. It's possible the Governor knows the actual lack of support behind the LGBT cult in his state. You can threaten and blackmail until the cows come home but you cannot control those voters on the day they actually step behind the curtain and cast their vote. They know what time it is on Crazy Street..

Current polling says the governor didn't know shit when he signed that idiotic bill into law. He even went so far as to say that he wanted to revise parts of the law, less than 48 hours after signing...And has since admitted that this will most likely cost him the election.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This is where the stupid PA laws have led us.