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.
If you leave people alone they will segregate themselves, desegregation is forcing people to do something that is against their nature.
Spoken like a true segregationalist....Bull Connor would be proud
You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.
Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.
If you leave people alone they will segregate themselves, desegregation is forcing people to do something that is against their nature.
Spoken like a true segregationalist....Bull Connor would be proud
You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.
Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.
my2¢;2325700 said:I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
I believe the line is already drawn. Nothing prevents one from holding a party and inviting who they please for whatever reason they please. But if one opens their business doors to the public (or offer their house up for sale), then it is simply the case that one person's money is as good as any other's.
That is determined by the person who owns the property. Sorry you have no say what other people do with their property.
I believe if you own a private establishment you should be able to allow or disallow anyone you please for whatever reason you please, isn't that part of being free means? If a person chooses to be a racist or be against homosexuals why does that bother you? If you and you gay buddies aren't allowed in you have the freedom to choose another establishment.
To actually not allow people to use their own freedom or property as they wish is not allowing them to have the views about things that they want. A person who disagrees strongly with gay marriage or adultry should not be compelled to support that behavior by letting that behavior occur within their own property. It use to be that hotel owners would not rent to people wanting pre-maritial sex or having adulterous relationships simply because the hotel owner did not agree with it. It was there way of saying that this is wrong and I don't support this.
I agree, liberals don't understand what freedom really means. They want everyone to think and act the way they do. They're all about freedom of choice unless it's a choice they don't like.
I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
This is very awesome. So why, again, were all you people pretending not to be racist?
Saying that people should be free to be racist on their own property doesn't make somebody racist.
Which is part of the problem.
yeah, because it's better when a restaurant can serve you month old meat that hasn't been refrigerated and is e-coli ridden.
yeppers.
*that* isn't part of the problem... the problem is people who can't tell the difference between when government is useful and when it isn't.
and the same loons who think government has no right to tell you that you can't segregate your lunch counter will tell you it's ok to tell women what to do with their own bodies or deny gays equal rights.
warped.
Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.
Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.
Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.
Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.
and after how many children die of e-coli does the restaurant act in its best intersts.
it doesn't work that way. thinking it does it naive to the nth degree.
the abortion issue has to do with WHEN does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life OUTWEIGH a woman's right to control her own body. Roe settled that issue and the loons still don't stop. BECAUSE THEY THINK GOVERNEMTN IS THERE TO DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT IT TO DO.
why shouldn't government have anything to do with marriage when marriage is a creation of government and a means of disposing of property rights?
naive... unbelievably naive.
Only in your hypothetical scenario does the restaurant use month old meat in the first place, however.
That's where the difference comes in on abortion, however. You think it's only a matter of when, whereas others would see it as a matter of if.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, the only part the government has to play is in defending the marriage contract. If the private religion wants to decide that two men or two women can get married then that's fine, all the government has to do is defend the contract that comes up. If the private religion decides that only a man and a woman can get married then the government's role remains the same.
I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.
and after how many children die of e-coli does the restaurant act in its best intersts.
it doesn't work that way. thinking it does it naive to the nth degree.
the abortion issue has to do with WHEN does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life OUTWEIGH a woman's right to control her own body. Roe settled that issue and the loons still don't stop. BECAUSE THEY THINK GOVERNEMTN IS THERE TO DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT IT TO DO.
why shouldn't government have anything to do with marriage when marriage is a creation of government and a means of disposing of property rights?
naive... unbelievably naive.
Only in your hypothetical scenario does the restaurant use month old meat in the first place, however.
That's where the difference comes in on abortion, however. You think it's only a matter of when, whereas others would see it as a matter of if.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, the only part the government has to play is in defending the marriage contract. If the private religion wants to decide that two men or two women can get married then that's fine, all the government has to do is defend the contract that comes up. If the private religion decides that only a man and a woman can get married then the government's role remains the same.
Actually businesses have been known to lie to their customers on in the past and have been fine with it UNTIL they got caught.
A couple of examples are mcdonalds lying about using 100% vegetable oil in their fryers when in fact they added beef broth to them to add flavor and another example is food lion a few years back got caught processing old hamburger meat and adding it to breakfast sausage and then reselling it as fresh. So to believe that a business would do that as if it is only a hypoctheitcal when it has happened is beyond naive.
Abortion: righties argue that it is a life at conception and yet it doesn't count as a citizen and have actual rights until it is born in this country. Any moron who argues that someone not born in this country does not qualify for the inalienable human rights protected by our constitution should see that it should also apply to anything not yet born.
Marriage: it is a religious ceremony and the government has no right to interfere in religion and that includes defining marriage. Furthermore based on the FACT that it is a religious institution how does anyone have the right to strip that religious freedom from anyone willing to engage in it?? If a private religion wishes to marry two individual no matter their sex what right does the government have to deny them their religious freedom?? You present half of the argument and then ignore the other side of the coin that parallels your own defense of marriage.
I don't believe that the government should recognize any religious institution. However if you want to go that way then you come to the 14th amendment which provides equal protection and for the government to recognize one marriage and not another is discrimination and unconstitutional
It doesn't mean you "support" it.This is very awesome. So why, again, were all you people pretending not to be racist?
Saying that people should be free to be racist on their own property doesn't make somebody racist.
It makes you a supporter and enabler of racism. I fail to see the distinction.
It doesn't mean you "support" it.Saying that people should be free to be racist on their own property doesn't make somebody racist.
It makes you a supporter and enabler of racism. I fail to see the distinction.
You believe marriage should be accessible to same-sex partners, I assume. So, are you a GLAAD and PFLAG activist? Go to pride parades on occasion?
Or does it just mean you believe people should have the ability to associate as they wish?
See what assuming does?
Not as embarrassed as we are about you guys. I assure you.I'm so embarrassed for you guys sometimes...
I'm with IHHF. You people can be so melodramatic about some stuff...Rand Paul is not a racist. Why, some of his best friends are black...
