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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Discrinination is a broad term and is used in many ways. It's one thing to be discriminant when it comes to who you take your pants off with or what you eat for dinner. It is quite another thing to refuse to serve a person in your place of business because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever .

Is it? What's so different about it?

If you don't know, -and I think that you do but you are just playing games here- but if you really don't know, you are beyond my ability to help you.

A while back, you said that the ability to discriminate is a fundamental right. I maintain that the freedom to walk into a buisnes with a reasonable expectation of being served and treated the same way os others, and not being humiliated, is a fundamental right. Why is the right that you assign to the business owner more valued or takes presidence over the right of the customer?

 

[dblack]

Discrinination is a broad term and is used in many ways. It's one thing to be discriminant when it comes to who you take your pants off with or what you eat for dinner. It is quite another thing to refuse to serve a person in your place of business because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever .

Is it? What's so different about it?

If you don't know, -and I think that you do but you are just playing games here- but if you really don't know, you are beyond my ability to help you.

I'm familiar with the excuses. But they don't make any sense.

A while back, you said that the ability to discriminate is a fundamental right.

Yep. The right to say "no" is a fundamental, individual right.

I maintain that the freedom to walk into a business with a reasonable expectation of being served and treated the same way os others, and not being humiliated, is a fundamental right.

I think that's insane.

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

I don't. You're comparison is ludicrous. No one has the right to force others to serve them against heir will. Slavery was banned for a reason.

Seriously - how do you defend the supposed "right to be served equally"??? If you want to, I can give you endless examples of how that fails any test of reasonableness. Shall I? Or you want to try another dodge?

 

[johnwk]

I see nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate. People discriminate numerous times a day in their daily activities.

But as usual, you deflect once again.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.

JWK


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

Discrinination is a broad term and is used in many ways. It's one thing to be discriminant when it comes to who you take your pants off with or what you eat for dinner. It is quite another thing to refuse to serve a person in your place of business because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever . So to say that "People discriminate numerous times a day in their daily activities is meaningles and just blowing smoke.

No blowing smoke on my end.

Another poster seemed to be upset because I find nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate as they please. How they use that freedom is a vastly different discussion.

JWK


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

 

[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.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Discrinination is a broad term and is used in many ways. It's one thing to be discriminant when it comes to who you take your pants off with or what you eat for dinner. It is quite another thing to refuse to serve a person in your place of business because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever .

Is it? What's so different about it?

If you don't know, -and I think that you do but you are just playing games here- but if you really don't know, you are beyond my ability to help you.

I'm familiar with the excuses. But they don't make any sense.

A while back, you said that the ability to discriminate is a fundamental right.

Yep. The right to say "no" is a fundamental, individual right.

I maintain that the freedom to walk into a business with a reasonable expectation of being served and treated the same way os others, and not being humiliated, is a fundamental right.

I think that's insane.

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

I don't. You're comparison is ludicrous. No one has the right to force others to serve them against heir will. Slavery was banned for a reason.

Seriously - how do you defend the supposed "right to be served equally"??? If you want to, I can give you endless examples of how that fails any test of reasonableness. Shall I? Or you want to try another dodge?

Holy shit! Seriously? You are conflating the forced servitude of slaves to the service provided by a business person who is making a profit and has his/her doors open to the general public? That is beyond bizarre. You are clearly pushing the envelope. A streach to far,. I would say,

 

[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

 

[dblack]

Holy shit! Seriously? You are conflating the forced servitude of slaves to the service provided by a business person who is making a profit and has his/her doors open to the general public? That is beyond bizarre. You are clearly pushing the envelope. A streach to far,. I would say,

It's forced servitude in both cases. You might think you have a good excuse for it, but that's still what's going on.

Let's talk about this:

I maintain that the freedom to walk into a business with a reasonable expectation of being served and treated the same way os others, and not being humiliated, is a fundamental right.

This is insane, and I challenge you to defend it as a general principle.

First of all, let's recognize that anti-discrimination laws don't ensure that everyone is treated equally by a business. They target a few unpopular biases (the "protected classes") and that's it. Everything else is fair game.

So, do you think that all kinds of discrimination should be illegal? Or just those on the protected classes list?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Holy shit! Seriously? You are conflating the forced servitude of slaves to the service provided by a business person who is making a profit and has his/her doors open to the general public? That is beyond bizarre. You are clearly pushing the envelope. A streach to far,. I would say,

It's forced servitude in both cases. You might think you have a good excuse for it, but that's still what's going on.

Let's talk about this:

I maintain that the freedom to walk into a business with a reasonable expectation of being served and treated the same way os others, and not being humiliated, is a fundamental right.

This is insane, and I challenge you to defend it as a general principle.

First of all, let's recognize that anti-discrimination laws don't ensure that everyone is treated equally by a business. They target a few unpopular biases (the "protected classes") and that's it. Everything else is fair game.

So, do you think that all kinds of discrimination should be illegal? Or just those on the protected classes list?

Insane? I will tell what's insane. It would be insane to have a society and an economy where there was not reasonable expectation people will be treated with civility and respect. It would be chaos and untenable
'
Anti discrimination laws -as they are generally written-do indeed mandate that everyone be treated equally. They state thatdiscrimination based on sex, race, national origin, and so on is prohibited. In short that mean that not only are minorities protected but that a member of a minority group may not discriminate against a straight, white,Christian male either,

So yes, I oppose all discrimination, not just the discrimination against the classes that they are intended to protect. It works both ways

 

[dblack]

Insane? I will tell what's insane. It would be insane to have a society and an economy where there was not reasonable expectation people will be treated with civility and respect. It would be chaos and untenable.

Outside of the "protected classes" nonsense, that's how it is now. How does it seem chaotic and untenable to you?

Anti discrimination laws -as they are generally written-do indeed mandate that everyone be treated equally.

No. They just don't. They target a few specific kinds of discrimination, and that's it.

So yes, I oppose all discrimination, not just the discrimination against the classes that they are intended to protect. It works both ways

Really? Would you try to make all discrimination illegal, if you could? Because that's what I'm calling insane. You seem to imagine a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally". Not only is such a thing completely impractical, it would require a ubiquitous state, routinely monitoring matters of individual conscience and choice.

Everyone should be guaranteed the right, with no need to justify their decisions to the state, to decide for themselves which causes they want to support and which they don't, which businesses they want to patronize and which they want to boycott, who they will do business with and who they will avoid.

I'm curious how you see Big Tech efforts to silence all the Trumpster trolling. Do you think political affiliation should be a protected class?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Outside of the "protected classes" nonsense, that's how it is now. How does it seem chaotic and untenable to you?

What are you talking about? That does not make any sense. How does it seem chaotic and untenable to me? Are you serious? Can you envision an environment where a person might walk into a place of business not knowing if he/she will be treated professionally and with respect or told that “we do not deal with your kind here”? And you continue to ignore the fact- either out of ignorance, or as a calculated gaslighting tactic- that laws against discrimination protect all people regardless of their class status.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

o. They just don't. They target a few specific kinds of discrimination, and that's it.

Horseshit! Prove it. Show, for instance that if a white person is refused service, or employment by a black person, and that refusal can be shown to be race based, that the black person would not be subjected to the appropriate penalties under the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really? Would you try to make all discrimination illegal, if you could? Because that's what I'm calling insane. You seem to imagine a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally". Not only is such a thing completely impractical, it would require a ubiquitous state, routinely monitoring matters of individual conscience and choice.

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.

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 . In my state of NJ which has the strongest law against discrimination, the government is not omnipresent in the day-to-day affairs of businesses and individuals. But if there is a complaint about discrimination, the state will step in and deal with it. So, your objection falls flat and is in fact idiotic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Everyone should be guaranteed the right, with no need to justify their decisions to the state, to decide for themselves which causes they want to support and which they don't, which businesses they want to patronize and which they want to boycott, who they will do business with and who they will avoid.

Err, What the hell are you blathering about now. People are guaranteed the right, with no need to justify their decisions to the state, to decide for themselves which causes they want to support and which they don't, which businesses they want to patronize and which they want to boycott, who they will do business with and who they will avoid. That is not what this is about. You seem very confused

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'm curious how you see Big Tech efforts to silence all the Trumpster trolling. Do you think political affiliation should be a protected class?

I would not be opposed to political affiliation being a protected class. But big tech has not silenced people because of political affiliation. They have silenced people for violating their policy against, misinformation, propaganda, incendiary content and so forth, and it just so happens that those who are guilty of those missives are Trumpsters.

I have you pegged as a Libertarian, which is just a slightly nicer term for anarchist. Social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Every poor bastard for themselves. Who needs government ? We the people got this, Am I right ?

 

[dblack]

Outside of the "protected classes" nonsense, that's how it is now. How does it seem chaotic and untenable to you?

What are you talking about? That does not make any sense. How does it seem chaotic and untenable to me? Are you serious? Can you envision an environment where a person might walk into a place of business not knowing if he/she will be treated professionally and with respect or told that “we do not deal with your kind here”?

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 everyone will be treated professionally or with respect.

And you continue to ignore the fact- either out of ignorance, or as a calculated gaslighting tactic- that laws against discrimination protect all people regardless of their class status.

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 certain types of discrimination. Everything not on the protected classes list is fair game. Why do YOU keep ignoring that?

 

[dblack]

Really? Would you try to make all discrimination illegal, if you could? Because that's what I'm calling insane. You seem to imagine a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally". Not only is such a thing completely impractical, it would require a ubiquitous state, routinely monitoring matters of individual conscience and choice.

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?

 

[dblack]

'm curious how you see Big Tech efforts to silence all the Trumpster trolling. Do you think political affiliation should be a protected class?

I would not be opposed to political affiliation being a protected class. But big tech has not silenced people because of political affiliation. They have silenced people for violating their policy against, misinformation, propaganda, incendiary content and so forth, and it just so happens that those who are guilty of those missives are Trumpsters.

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

I have you pegged as a Libertarian, which is just a slightly nicer term for anarchist. Social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Every poor bastard for themselves. Who needs government ? We the people got this, Am I right ?

No. You're dead wrong. Try again.

 

[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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

I believe that you are the one who is delusional, or just lying

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really? Would you try to make all discrimination illegal, if you could? Because that's what I'm calling insane. You seem to imagine a world where the government goes around making sure everyone treats each other "equally". Not only is such a thing completely impractical, it would require a ubiquitous state, routinely monitoring matters of individual conscience and choice.

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