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.
So the averagebear makes a case, knowing that if said man gets kicked out for allegedgly being smell he will come in the next time with four friends and their vids tools in the cameras.
bear, quit saying silly things, please. You seem to so much want to discriminate based on color or whatever. Son, you can't without being punished.
It was the democrat party that tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act and they used it to try to keep Black people on the democrat plantation with media and peer pressure ever since it was passed
Those Democrats were conservatives.
Now pay attention. "Those Democrats were conservative." How do you know? Who said so? Wouldn't a good test of your fantasy position be that most of those Democrats switched party allegiance to become Republicans? Well, did they switch parties? You can probably guess that I already know the answer and that you don't:
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.I'd appreciate if you could do me a favor, I have an ongoing study of how liberals come to be so brainwashed about reality and it would help me if you could explain exactly how you came to believe a false reality? Who did this to you?
Considering I served twelve years in the military, having been associated with thousands of men and women of color, I know your argument about the right to discriminate is nonsense.
You have no right to discriminate in public accommodations.
No one cares what you do privately.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.
It's the EXACT same fucking thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a fucking thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.
Are you really this stupid?
Got it wrong again.Wrong again. I just read the list of protected classes. First name wasn't on there.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.
It's the EXACT same fucking thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a fucking thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.
Are you really this stupid?
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.
It's the EXACT same fucking thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a fucking thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.
Are you really this stupid?
You are completely stupid if you thing anyone here who is informed and understands this issue agrees with you, rookie.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.
It's the EXACT same fucking thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a fucking thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.
Are you really this stupid?
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.
You brought up the military service, light bird; take the tone elsewhere, troop.
You may not legally discriminate against persons as representatives of protected classes. You can discriminate against an unruly customer, but you cannot discriminate against anyone who conducts him or herself in an appropriate manner in any business in which you hold out publicly a good or serve.
You cannot bar me from your shop because I am a Jake. Do that, and I will own your business.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
It's not the same thing. Concealed carry is a behavior thing. Barring Jakes is about who you are.
It's the EXACT same fucking thing. Go read the bill. it doesn't say a fucking thing about behavior. it simply says you can't discriminate for a,b/c,d, or e. You can discriminate for f-z all you want.
Are you really this stupid?
I think you're being obtuse, if you don't see the difference. Once again you're becoming totally boring. I think you just argue for argument's sake without rhyme or reason.
Wrong private, as many businesses are proving RIGHT NOW when they are saying "no customers with concealed carry please"
That's discrimination... and it's legal, and it should be.
Not the same thing as you well know. The law tells you what you can do, not you. Rik is as confused as you are. That's nothing new.
Then why the need for specific homosexual anti-discrimination legislation? IF they're already covered because everyone is covered, then why?
14th and 15th already cover this ground. Civil Rights Act is redundant.If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...
it would be an ugly symbolic gesture at best. At worst, it could do serious damage to the principles of equality under the. Most of the Civil Rights Act itself makes sense. Granted, the public accommodations laws are insidious, and the idea of protected classes directly contradicts equal protection. And the policies built up around these parts of the law should be abolished. But the idea that government must respect equal rights is vital to a free society, and that's the what the bulk of the Act addresses.
Sir we have a Constitutional Amendment which states that already
Would be akin to passing a law that says the government can't take away guns. Why bother?
But why bother to repeal something that is simply redundant. I agree, portions of it need to go, but the symbolism of repealing it en toto would be a honking middle finger to minorities. Just don't see any point in it.
