Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MLK fought for the rights of people to use facilities who were turned away from them.
These protestors are fighting to turn people away from facilities they have a right to use.
Comparing these situations is objectively the dumbest thing anyone could say.
The right to segregate a lunch counter didn't go away until Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law was upheld by the Warren Court, which is the most liberal court the country has ever seen and would never have been upheld by the types of conservative justices that Republicans celebrate these days. Moreover, Title II is poorly regarded on the right as a legal overreach and has been relentlessly attacked since then.For decades the right was with the segregators. That right didn't go away until the SC cases and the Civil Rights act made them go away.
Trying to think there is a difference between these situations, especially when the protests are peaceful just shows how much of an abortion freak you are.
this post is the best response to OP so far (not that I have read 100% of them but anyhow.. of the ones I have--)The perpetrators were already punished. Garland is continuing to step in to target and punish pro-life supporters.
I just read where one of Garland's liberal AGs immediately let out of jail without bail a volent criminal only to jail the same criminal for the same violent crime 3 hours later, but you are telling me that this old woman who prayed and sang hymns is a bigger threat than this guy. .. or than the domestic terrorists who are firebombing churches Garland refuses to go after and prosecute?!
God forbid Garland takes the time to investigate the USSC leaker or to prosecute domestic terrorists committing bombings with domestic threats like this praying, hymn-singing villain who had already been charged running around.
The right to segregate a lunch counter didn't go away until Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law was upheld by the Warren Court, which is the most liberal court the country has ever seen and would never have been upheld by the types of conservative justices that Republicans celebrate these days. Moreover, Title II is poorly regarded on the right as a legal overreach and has been relentlessly attacked since then.
So if you kindly, go fuck yourself trying to pretend that you're on the side of the federal government desegregating lunch counters.
The difference between sit ins and abortion protestors is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Civil rights protestors tried to EXPAND access to facilities.
These protestors are trying to END access to facilities.
That thug “clinic escort” is a volunteer and he was on the street curb where whatever happened, happened. Whatever happened was insufficient for criminal charges or damages in civil court.There's nothing peaceful about Houck physically attacking a clinic worker.
There were once laws in this country that prevented people of a certain color from eating in places where people of a different color were allowed to. Some people decided that those laws were unjust and went into those places anyway and just sat down. Getting arrested for breaking the law was just part of the experience.It's against the law to block access to a clinic. They were arrested for blocking access in what the people arrested called a "Blockade" of a clinic. The old woman's status as a concentration camp survivor doesn't exempt her from following the law.
Sure I am but you never post any.Not a fan of rational, factual posts?
She should have burned down dozens of black owned businesses. Then she wouldn’t even be arrested.She isn't going to spend a day in prison.
It's nice of people to note that civil disobedience is a valid tactic though.
Nothing changes the fact you support selective justice. In other words, fascism. Un-American and unjust.
Sure I am but you never post any.
She should have burned down dozens of black owned businesses. Then she wouldn’t even be arrested.
Dismantle the FBI? Thats the dumbest thing ive hear today. Get rid of the leadership sure, but we cant get rid of the finest investigation group the world has ever known.Does it seem a wise use of funds? No. I have long advocated for the dismantling of the FBI. Long before it became popular with the right.
salami, salami, baloney!You are not allowed to stand in front of the doors. She can sing all day just not in front of the doors.
Both babies and fetuses are human beings. It is not only a fact, it is a long- standing truth. Oh, wait! Science has recently been updated to the Pelisi option, "The truth is optional." Especially if the Democrats can get votes out of their dictatorship of killing human beings of any time. Democrats have become an unstable killing machine since 1973 when Roe v. Wade passed against religion's freedom that was once in the First Amendment that is being itch slapped by the left for decades.The left doesn't support killing babies. They support aborting fetuses.
The right loves to air their list of grievances.
They blocked the entry door. That is illegal.
You have to be pretty naive to not see the correlation between Trump's FBI Mar Lago victim hood rage and the right wing medias' explosion of anti FBI stories.
It's really no different then anything else Trump decides to hate.
Are you completely oblivious to how propaganda works?
Most everything.Feel free to note and correct what I said wrong.
It's hilarious to see you put Plessy and Obergfell in the same category given how they're complete opposite takes on the 14th amendment.I think Plessey was just as bad as Roe was and as Obergfell is.
Protect the lives of the unborn, protect access to a lunch counter. Now we all know it was really about economic, political and social access, the lunch counter was just a symptom of a larger issue, but I think you get my drift.
Title II is just fine for actual public accommodations. Where it runs into trouble is where it crosses over to contracted services, specifically ones where the question of free speech and religious exercise come into play.
It seems quite similar.Feel like I'm living in Germany 1938.
Another person confused about the 14th Amendment.It's hilarious to see you put Plessy and Obergfell in the same category given how they're complete opposite takes on the 14th amendment.
You're all over the map. This is what happens when you have political views based on convenience rather than actual principle.
