AliHajiSheik
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,566
- Reaction score
- 4,376
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
...just letting you know that see through you bull****, having dealt with it many times before.
So you support discriminating against people based on marital status.None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
...just letting you know that see through you bull****, having dealt with it many times before.
I have to wonder where Henrin lives, that he was taught and believes that any place of public accommodation can refuse service to anyone based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
I lived in Southeast Louisiana for about 20 years and I ate and drank in a lot restaurants, bars, etc. and stayed in a lot of hotels, motels. Did not see a single place that refused service to anyone based on their race, color, religion, or national origin.
Henrin is full of malarkey.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Facepalm..
I'm aware of what the law says and I'm aware that is all you guys have. You should try reading in the future.
I'm still waiting for any defense of that part of the law. Anyone want to give it a shot?
If you don't like the law, you have a problem.
The law doesn't need defense, you need defense.
You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who are opposed to discrimination.
The only defense I ever seen for this part of the law is based almost entirely on fairness or that it's open to the public. Barring people from entering property is PART of private property and it doesn't matter what the reason for them doing this is. No one else has a right to be on the property. Period. You can NOT trump rights with claiming it is not fair or that the business is public. It doesn't matter if its fair for them to do this. It's also not open to the public as I have said earlier, but to who owner/s want in. Nothing will change this, not even law. It's simply a matter of fact and how property functions in the real world.
Since i just dealt with both possible angles you could take here on any possible defense I guessing you won't bother.
The law is the law and will remain the law whether you like it or not.
Violate it at your peril.
You are way outside of the mainstream of American politics.
I'm opposed to discrimination too. Sorry, but my feelings on the matter doesn't change that the owner/s have a right to deny me access to their property.
I've heard the same malarkey from other so-called libertarians, and I'm not buying it.
When the effect of what someone does is racist, that person is a racist in my book.
You can pass whatever judgment you wish, but in the end it means nothing to me.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is here to stay whether you like it or not.
It wasn't put into law to please people like you.
I suggest that you, Rand Paul, and a few others learn to deal with it.
You can continue to ignore reason if it makes you feel better, but it surely does not make you look better. Call me racist, call my arguments inane, but until you show something of substance you will undoubtedly have nothing to stand on.
What reason?
You don't have any reason, all you have is your minority opinion which is worth zilch against federal law which has been tested at the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can not simply excuse reason by a Argumentum ad populum argument.
You lost this argument almost 50 years ago when the U.S. Congress passed, and President Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Keep shoveling sand against the tide, won't change a thing.
Some people can't handle the reality that actually exists, they're too busy wishing for a reality that isn't true.
You lost this argument almost 50 years ago when the U.S. Congress passed, and President Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Keep shoveling sand against the tide, won't change a thing.
I have no reason to argue against something that refuses to engage in debate over the merits of what they support and instead wish to partake in an endless stream of logical fallacies. I consider this talk over and your argument pathetic.
That's fine, we consider you the same way.
I consider this talk over and your argument pathetic.
:roll:
Whatever you say.