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 you don't think it would be far fetched in America today to see "No Muslims allowed" at restaurants and hotels ? "No Gays Allowed" ? No Christians, No Jews, No Pagans, No Blacks, No Dogberts ?
The individual business owner who is permitted to do business by the State to provide PUBLIC accommodations as a means to conduct business, can supercede an individuals right to be considered a part of the general public ?
People are forced to resort to boycotts when their government does not protect them. Boycotts and strikes cause strife to both sides. They are last resort tactics and to be avoided whenever possible. Fair and equitable laws and the enforcement of them go a long way in preventing the kind of disorder and economic ruin that boycotts can cause.
Sorry to play the age card but your obstinacy cries out for it.Why not? If you find it so unecessary and an imposition on individual freedoms?
Did I ever say any of those two things? I'm merely stating my personal opinion when it comes to eating at racist establishments and stating the fact that America in 2010 is greatly different then it was in 1964.
Sorry to play the age card but your obstinacy cries out for it.
Tell me, were you even alive in 1964?
SO you don't think it would be far fetched in America today to see "No Muslims allowed" at restaurants and hotels ? "No Gays Allowed" ? No Christians, No Jews, No Pagans, No Blacks, No Dogberts ?
The individual business owner who is permitted to do business by the State to provide PUBLIC accommodations as a means to conduct business, can supercede an individuals right to be considered a part of the general public ?
I don't think it would be farfetched at all. What I'm saying however is enough people are not going to go to such places and will therefore put a economic strain on those businesses.
Besides, they don't let us Dogberts in already.
Individuals are considered a part of the general public whether they are allowed in a business or not.
If an individual citizen wants to conduct business by means of providing PUBLIC accommodations, the State must require protection of ALL citizens to receive equal treatment under the law.
If an individual citizen does not want to treat his fellow citizens with equality then he does not have to, but an individual citizen does not have a right to provide public accommodations as a means to conduct business.
The State has a duty to it's citizens to uphold this Constitutional standard of equality under the law.
Now you are really becoming nonsensical. Did you not agree that it's not against the law to be a racist? If a racist wants to keep his/her racist thoughts to him/herself, that is his/her prerogative. To claim that making it legal to deny service according to race is gonna somehow make all the racist restaurant owners come out in the open so you can organize boycotts against them and put them out of business more effectively than by legal means is ludicrous. But all the more power to you, Dogbert.People are forced to resort to boycotts when their government does not protect them. Boycotts and strikes cause strife to both sides. They are last resort tactics and to be avoided whenever possible. Fair and equitable laws and the enforcement of them go a long way in preventing the kind of disorder and economic ruin that boycotts can cause.
That's exactly my point and why boycotts are effective. Like I said before, you want to stop racist establishments yet you want to keep giving them your money. Meanwhile, all you're doing by making laws that no establishment can be racist is making those racists earn their money in private.
I said it before and I'll say it again, I'd want a list of every racist establishment so I would know enough to not go there.
If an individual citizen wants to conduct business by means of providing PUBLIC accommodations, the State must require protection of ALL citizens to receive equal treatment under the law.
If an individual citizen does not want to treat his fellow citizens with equality then he does not have to, but an individual citizen does not have a right to provide public accommodations as a means to conduct business.
The State has a duty to it's citizens to uphold this Constitutional standard of equality under the law.
I'm all for equality, don't get me wrong. I just don't get why someone would want to give a racist establishment their cash. It makes absolutely no sense to me on any level.
And we get that you don't get it. So shut up.
Because as I already explained to you, dear boy. You've had the good fortune to never have found yourself in the position of having to compromise your principals in order to feed your family.If an individual citizen wants to conduct business by means of providing PUBLIC accommodations, the State must require protection of ALL citizens to receive equal treatment under the law.
If an individual citizen does not want to treat his fellow citizens with equality then he does not have to, but an individual citizen does not have a right to provide public accommodations as a means to conduct business.
The State has a duty to it's citizens to uphold this Constitutional standard of equality under the law.
I'm all for equality, don't get me wrong. I just don't get why someone would want to give a racist establishment their cash. It makes absolutely no sense to me on any level.
And we get that you don't get it. So shut up.
I understand what you're saying and what the argument is. It just makes no sense logically to go to a place that is racist for your business.
Telling me to shut up is very unAmerican of you.
Now you are really becoming nonsensical. Did you not agree that it's not against the law to be a racist? If a racist wants to keep his/her racist thoughts to him/herself, that is his/her prerogative. To claim that making it legal to deny service according to race is gonna somehow make all the racist restaurant owners come out in the open so you can organize boycotts against them and put them out of business more effectively than by legal means is ludicrous. But all the more power to you, Dogbert.
Americans tell each other to shut up all the time douchenozzle.
Now you are really becoming nonsensical. Did you not agree that it's not against the law to be a racist? If a racist wants to keep his/her racist thoughts to him/herself, that is his/her prerogative. To claim that making it legal to deny service according to race is gonna somehow make all the racist restaurant owners come out in the open so you can organize boycotts against them and put them out of business more effectively than by legal means is ludicrous. But all the more power to you, Dogbert.
Not against the law to be a racist, and it shouldn't be against the law.
Like I said, you want to continue to give establishments that are racist in their thoughts cash. Just like when it comes to hate speech, I want those people out in the open saying it. That way, I know whom to not associate myself with may it be personally, professionally, or with my money.
Americans tell each other to shut up all the time douchenozzle.
Americans murder one another quite often too, doesn't make it right.
You're no better than Billo who yells in his guests faces telling people to shut up on that one.
Because as I already explained to you, dear boy. You've had the good fortune to never have found yourself in the position of having to compromise your principals in order to feed your family.
If an individual citizen wants to conduct business by means of providing PUBLIC accommodations, the State must require protection of ALL citizens to receive equal treatment under the law.
If an individual citizen does not want to treat his fellow citizens with equality then he does not have to, but an individual citizen does not have a right to provide public accommodations as a means to conduct business.
The State has a duty to it's citizens to uphold this Constitutional standard of equality under the law.
I'm all for equality, don't get me wrong. I just don't get why someone would want to give a racist establishment their cash. It makes absolutely no sense to me on any level.
Telling someone to shut up isn't against the law cockhead.
Telling someone to shut up isn't against the law cockhead.
Never said it was against the law. You being wrong doesn't mean it's wrong in a legal sense. But carry on.
That is beside the point and a very naive point of view to boot.
We don't base constitutional protections on demographic market projections and public sentiment for cash flow.
