- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,981
- Reaction score
- 7,364
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Congress passed a law, the Supreme Court approves of it, and that's good enough for me.
If you want to find an argument more compelling than combating racism, get after it.
So if I am reading this correctly, you are of the opinion that one only has a right if it is codified and defined by law. Otherwise that right doesn't exist. Is this correct. If not, please explain what your belief on rights is.
Here's an idea: Open up a public restaurant and put a sign on the door saying: NO (Pick your least favorite ethnic or religious group.) ALLOWED, and you will learn some very compelling reasons to obey the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Try it and tell us how it works out.
You argument works on the premise of what the law is. However you are arguing against the wrong premise. If the law states that the media shall only print what the government tells it or allows it to, do you then agree that freedom of press is not a right? The principle holds true across the board. The argument here is not what the law says, but what the right is. Either the law defines rights or rights are and the law may indeed restrict or deny that right.
You sure are a one trick pony in favor of discrimination.
One does not have to favor discrimination to support the freedom to discriminate. It's very similar to the way that there are people who do not support abortion (and in fact abhor it) but still support the freedom for a woman to choose whether or not to get one. We accept that with free speech comes the requirement to allow people to say things that we will find abhorrent. This is another example of where the principle need to remain consistent across the board.
It might have been this guy:
<Jesus pic>
Do you believe that Jesus Christ would approve of these signs:
<No Colored signs pic>
Think about it.
At any point did you ever find Jesus trying to get the law changed? In all my reading and studying, the only thing I saw him try to do was to get people to change. Think about it.
Yes we should be trying to stop things like racism, sexism, homophobia, abortion and all kinds of other ills, but not at the expense of freedom and liberty. It is better to change them socially, not legally.
Edit add on: Think on this: Why are you willing to force a person to sell/provide a service for a person even if they don't want to (because of skin color) but you are not willing to force a person to buy/use a service from a person even if they don't want to (because of skin color). And just to prevent the obvious argument of forcing a person to buy when they don't want at all. Use the example of the person who gets a product and gets in line and is standing there through 5 people. Then the cashiers change out and the new cashier is black (the customer white, although feel free to substitute any two different races as the point holds true regardless). The customer now gets out of line rather than conduct a business transaction with a black person. RACISM! Yet you won't combat that by law, will you?
Last edited: