The Equality Act, another lawyers' full employment Act and an attack on inalienable rights

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yeah, yeah. "It's different when we do it." I've heard that one before.

Prove me wrong

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No. You're dead wrong. Try again.

Then what the hell are you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to your claim that discrimination laws ensure that people are treated equally. That may be what you tell yourself, but it's delusion. All they do is ban a handful of types of discrimination. Everything not on the protected classes list is fair game. Why do YOU keep ignoring that?

More bullshit that I have already refuted

 

[dblack]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

Because you refuse to acknowledge my point. Presumably because it doesn't suit your narrative. You just stick your head back up your ass and ignore it.

Do you really not understand that discrimination laws only apply to protected classes?

Maybe you need concrete examples: People can be legally discriminated against because of their socio-economic status. They can be discriminated against because they're ugly. Or short. Or tall. Or fat. Or bad dressers. Or because they have an unusual accent. They can be discriminated against because their name starts with a "T", or because they're from Alabama. They can be discriminated against for an infinite number of reasons. The only thing these laws do is prohibit a few of those reasons (ie the protected classes). How do you prevent this fact from entering you brain?

 

[dblack]

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to your claim that discrimination laws ensure that people are treated equally. That may be what you tell yourself, but it's delusion. All they do is ban a handful of types of discrimination. Everything not on the protected classes list is fair game. Why do YOU keep ignoring that?

More bullshit that I have already refuted

Nope. You're just ostriching. Weak.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

Because you refuse to acknowledge my point. Presumably because it doesn't suit your narrative. You just stick your head back up your ass and ignore it.

Do you really not understand that discrimination laws only apply to protected classes?

Maybe you need concrete examples: People can be legally discriminated against because of their socio-economic status. They can be discriminated against because they're ugly. Or short. Or tall. Or fat. Or bad dressers. Or because they have an unusual accent. They can be discriminated against because their name starts with a "T", or because they're from Alabama. They can be discriminated against for an infinite number of reasons. The only thing these laws do is prohibit a few of those reasons (ie the protected classes). How do you prevent this fact from entering you brain?

Non Sequitur and false equivalency logical fallacy. The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities. I established that they do. Now you are just throwing more dung at the wall hoping that it will stick It is not a viable argument

 

[danielpalos]

The OP From post 105:

I find nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate as they please .

Priceless…

Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[johnwk]

Why is the right that you assign to the business owner more valued or takes presidence over the right of the customer?

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

We have ben all through that if you don't get it by now you never will. You are either playing stupid or you really are that obtuse. My guess is that you are just playing a sick game here

I noticed you did not answer my fundamental question:

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

 

[johnwk]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

So, you have no real rebuttal to facts when they are presented to you. All you have is an unsubstantiated assertion.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[danielpalos]

How about a "race tax"? Anyone who alleges to believe in race and racism can pay that tax.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why is the right that you assign to the business owner more valued or takes presidence over the right of the customer?

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

We have ben all through that if you don't get it by now you never will. You are either playing stupid or you really are that obtuse. My guess is that you are just playing a sick game here

I noticed you did not answer my fundamental question:

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

I did answere it, you just don't like the answer. You are free to select your personal associations as much as you want. But in business and public accomodations you cannot discriminate. People have a right to be free of discrimination and to be treated equally. The right to to freedome of association, like all rights is not absolute . It ends where you excercisizing that right infringes on the rights of others.

CC dblack

 

[johnwk]

Why is the right that you assign to the business owner more valued or takes presidence over the right of the customer?

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

We have ben all through that if you don't get it by now you never will. You are either playing stupid or you really are that obtuse. My guess is that you are just playing a sick game here

I noticed you did not answer my fundamental question:

Why do Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

I did answere it, you just don't like the answer. You are free to select your personal associations as much as you want. But in business and public accomodations you cannot discriminate. People have a right to be free of discrimination and to be treated equally. The right to to freedome of association, like all rights is not absolute . It ends where you excercisizing that right infringes on the rights of others.

As is usually the case with you, you did not tell me why you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities.

JWK

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

View attachment 501327
So, you have no real rebuttal to facts when they are presented to you. All you have is an unsubstantiated assertion.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

You and DBlackare the ones spewing unsubstantiated assertions. Please explain how, when a law reads that you may not discriminate on the basis of race, a white person does not have the same recourse as a black person if one is the victim of discrimination

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why is the right that you assign to the business owner more valued or takes presidence over the right of the customer?

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

We have ben all through that if you don't get it by now you never will. You are either playing stupid or you really are that obtuse. My guess is that you are just playing a sick game here

I noticed you did not answer my fundamental question:

Why do Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

It seems to me you embrace "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

I did answere it, you just don't like the answer. You are free to select your personal associations as much as you want. But in business and public accomodations you cannot discriminate. People have a right to be free of discrimination and to be treated equally. The right to to freedome of association, like all rights is not absolute . It ends where you excercisizing that right infringes on the rights of others.

As is usually the case with you, you did not tell me why you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities.

JWK

Bullshit! You just can't accept it or understand it

 

[johnwk]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

View attachment 501327
So, you have no real rebuttal to facts when they are presented to you. All you have is an unsubstantiated assertion.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

You and DBlackare the ones spewing unsubstantiated assertions.

What unsubstantiated assertions have I made. Please quote my words.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the way it is. This is a fact despite your claims to the contrary. Discrimination laws only prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. They don't ensure that anyone will be treated with professionally or with respect.

Why do you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again? It was bullshit yesterday, it is bullshit today, and it will be bullshit tomorrow. No matter how many times you repeat bullshit, it will still be bullshit

View attachment 501327
So, you have no real rebuttal to facts when they are presented to you. All you have is an unsubstantiated assertion.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

You and DBlackare the ones spewing unsubstantiated assertions.

What unsubstantiated assertions have I made. Please quote my words.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

I already did! Deal with it

 

[dblack]

The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities.

That's not the issue I've been talking about. You keep ignoring what I'm talking about because you're wrong and you can't admit it.

You claimed that "All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964." and that is just not true.

Are you giving up on this claim? You don't seem interested in defending it.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, yeah. "It's different when we do it." I've heard that one before.

Prove me wrong

I've been doing that. But when presented with irrefutable arguments, you ostrich up. That's just tiresome.

 

[dblack]

All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Are you deluded, or deliberately lying? Because that is demonstrably untrue. People can be discriminated against for any reason as long as it's not a protected class.

Your whining about “a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally" is ridiculous and lugubrious, The government is doing no such thing .

I know they're not. It's impossible. But isn't that what you're after?

You know they're not.? Thank you for admitting your lie

I'll ask again - isn't that what you're after? Funny, you always ignore the questions and points that prove you wrong. Why?

 

[danielpalos]

The issue is whether or not laws against discrimination that prohibit discrimination based on specific criteria such as race, protect both minorities and majorities.

That's not the issue I've been talking about. You keep ignoring what I'm talking about because you're wrong and you can't admit it.

You claimed that "All discrimination is illegal aside from discrimination against LGBT people in states that do not include them in their antidiscrimination laws. It is also illegal ( excluding LGBT people) at the federal level as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964." and that is just not true.

Are you giving up on this claim? You don't seem interested in defending it.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land expressly for this issue:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.