Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No, it doesn't. This is what I asked...
And that s exactly what the court case addresses.
No, it doesn't. This is what I asked...
I have. Read the history of the civil rights movement. You'll find it.
Of course there are differences between a person and a business. A business is a type of organization formed by a person. But businesses do not have minds. They can not think. It is the persons behind the business that sets the policy, and it is the persons behind the business that would be discriminating. I find it very odd to have to explain this to someone.I'm still pretty sure I don't need a license to exist, so whether you want to admit it or not there are obvious differences between a person and a business. At work I do what's best for the business even if that means I have to keep my personal opinions to myself. I may have to say McD's is the best! while I'm flipping their burgers - but that doesn't stop me from clocking out and going to Burger King as a person instead of a McD's employee.
You can't. Otherwise there would be no point of the law, no? All those racists businesses could just say "we aren't OTTP" and continue on exactly the same as always.As far as the license goes, I haven't seen proof of that you can't open any non-OTTP business you want.
Zoning laws are irrelevant to this discussion, which deals with public accommodation and discrimination laws.In respect to zoning laws, it's a matter of where, not what type. You might be able to open a corner bar (even an OTTP bar) in your neighborhood but not be allowed to open one in the tourist district. That's a matter of city planning and has little to do with discrimination.
Anyone can enter a government building because government buildings are required to serve all citizens equally under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That amendment does not apply to private property, hence the part that reads "under the law." Sorry, your example is irrelevant. We are talking about private property, not government property.I asked you who you thought was allowed to enter a government building or a post office. I'm sorry you don't like your own definition.
Its not a pretend wrong. Its a violation of private property rights, plain and simple. If you want to argue against private property rights, go for it. Just be honest.Nor does it mean it evolved the wrong way. The fact is it corrected an actual wrong and not a pretend wrong, like poor bigots not being able to discriminate.
can you find civil rights in the constitution, ...no
civil rights laws created by government do not override the rights of the people.
Its not a pretend wrong. Its a violation of private property rights, plain and simple. If you want to argue against private property rights, go for it. Just be honest.
, but we have laws beyond the Constitution,
It's nothing of the kind. It really isn't.
oh,, will you please tell me what they are, becuase i know of no law more powerful than constitutional law.
Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
I actually is. Ownership means control of a resource. If a person can't control who comes onto his property, if a person can't control who he interacts with, then that is a violation of his property rights in his body and in his home/store.
Who said anything about more powerful. Read better.
You have control. You can keep it to yourself. You don't have to enter the public market.
then no law, can violate the constitution, so statutory laws, dont have the power to take away property rights.
right to commerce.
You have control. You can keep it to yourself. You don't have to enter the public market.
You can enter the racket place if you choose. But if you choose to, you have to follow the rules. Don't discriminate as they have rights as well.
Nothing has violated the constitution.
So are you saying that one should lose his property rights if he decides to enter the market? Why should someone lose the right to control his body and property just because he chooses to engage in trade?
sorry you dont have exercisable rights on other people's property
right to property..violated all the time.
No. Only in the mind of the bigot.
sorry no right there...Only to not be discriminated against.
And that s exactly what the court case addresses.
I'm saying its stupid and petty to call that a loss of property rights.
no, according to the founders.