Red scare of the 1950's, today we have the racist scare

[Slade3200]

So, to be clear, you'd be fine with a "Whites Only" restaurant?

whites only
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.

They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.

PA laws dont cover everyone. There is an inconsistency for you.
People are who they are. Forced conformity doesnt eradicate problems. Its a temporary band aid that will probably create more.

If you look at the evolution over the past century, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights Movement, to today, I think you would see tremendous growth and acceptance in public perception. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to the majority, so I'd say that the "forced conformity" as you call has been rather successful so far and its been for the betterment of our country. Still plenty of work to do, which I hope can involve more community groups and charities and less big government

 

[TNHarley]

whites only
blacks only
latinos only
jews only
no jews
no muslims
muslims only
whatever you can think of. People should be able to do what they want their private property.
I think its stupid but people should be free to be stupid without the state coming in there and fining them or some other statist bullshit.

They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.

PA laws dont cover everyone. There is an inconsistency for you.
People are who they are. Forced conformity doesnt eradicate problems. Its a temporary band aid that will probably create more.

If you look at the evolution over the past century, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights Movement, to today, I think you would see tremendous growth and acceptance in public perception. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to the majority, so I'd say that the "forced conformity" as you call has been rather successful so far and its been for the betterment of our country. Still plenty of work to do, which I hope can involve more community groups and charities and less big government

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

And that's fine that you disagree. I am actually with you in many respects on that. But I see a big issue...


Someone claiming their freedom to not give medical assistance to someone in the ER because they are black or gay? Calling a cab and being late for an important meeting because he wouldn't give you a ride based on your race? What if the cook at your kids school won't make or serve your child a lunch over religious beliefs? Or their basketball coach saying "nope, you aren't Christian, get off my team"? What if your wife couldn't get dinner made because the only grocery store in town wouldn't let her shop?

You've got to protect all or none. And there's the issue. I really would say "protect all the Christian religous freedom, except in all of these categories where they have to provide life saving assistance"... But that's not legal for obvious reasons. It's got to be either all or none. Either we protect the rights of a police officer who won't enter your house to stop a rape because of his religious beliefs against you, or we don't protect those rights.

Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.
Besides schools are govt institutions. Alot of hospitals are as well.
Like i just said to slade, Federal PA laws dont cover everyone. You saying "all or none" doesnt help out your argument

I think Slash made some very fair arguments. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. He used plenty of examples that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

 

[TNHarley]

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

And that's fine that you disagree. I am actually with you in many respects on that. But I see a big issue...


Someone claiming their freedom to not give medical assistance to someone in the ER because they are black or gay? Calling a cab and being late for an important meeting because he wouldn't give you a ride based on your race? What if the cook at your kids school won't make or serve your child a lunch over religious beliefs? Or their basketball coach saying "nope, you aren't Christian, get off my team"? What if your wife couldn't get dinner made because the only grocery store in town wouldn't let her shop?

You've got to protect all or none. And there's the issue. I really would say "protect all the Christian religous freedom, except in all of these categories where they have to provide life saving assistance"... But that's not legal for obvious reasons. It's got to be either all or none. Either we protect the rights of a police officer who won't enter your house to stop a rape because of his religious beliefs against you, or we don't protect those rights.

Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.
Besides schools are govt institutions. Alot of hospitals are as well.
Like i just said to slade, Federal PA laws dont cover everyone. You saying "all or none" doesnt help out your argument

I think he made some very fair examples. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. Used plenty that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

 

[Slade3200]

They can do that in the privacy of their home. If they decide to be a business owner and partake in commerce within this country we have laws that reject that philosophy. We had Jim Crow and America used to operate like you suggest it should, but it was an ugly time and blacks were grossly mistreated, our citizens stood up against that and passed the civil rights act. I'm sorry that you don't agree, and I'm sorry that America won't be going back to Jim Crow, but people with your point of view are fizzing out so it hopefully won't be much of a problem after another generation or two.

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.

PA laws dont cover everyone. There is an inconsistency for you.
People are who they are. Forced conformity doesnt eradicate problems. Its a temporary band aid that will probably create more.

If you look at the evolution over the past century, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights Movement, to today, I think you would see tremendous growth and acceptance in public perception. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to the majority, so I'd say that the "forced conformity" as you call has been rather successful so far and its been for the betterment of our country. Still plenty of work to do, which I hope can involve more community groups and charities and less big government

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

It may be suppressed for some old timers that grew up with segregation and Jim Crow but they are dying out. There may be some carry over for their children and grandchildren depending on how they were raised, however, I think it would be fair to say it is very much diluted. Children don't distinguish or judge based on race or religion, it is taught to them by family and society. Our society has grown much more accepting and inclusive which will have an effect on the next generations of children. If you really think that the same level of prejudice exists as did 100 years ago but it is simply suppressed then I really don't think you have a realistic theory.

 

[Slash]

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

And that's fine that you disagree. I am actually with you in many respects on that. But I see a big issue...


Someone claiming their freedom to not give medical assistance to someone in the ER because they are black or gay? Calling a cab and being late for an important meeting because he wouldn't give you a ride based on your race? What if the cook at your kids school won't make or serve your child a lunch over religious beliefs? Or their basketball coach saying "nope, you aren't Christian, get off my team"? What if your wife couldn't get dinner made because the only grocery store in town wouldn't let her shop?

You've got to protect all or none. And there's the issue. I really would say "protect all the Christian religous freedom, except in all of these categories where they have to provide life saving assistance"... But that's not legal for obvious reasons. It's got to be either all or none. Either we protect the rights of a police officer who won't enter your house to stop a rape because of his religious beliefs against you, or we don't protect those rights.

Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.
Besides schools are govt institutions. Alot of hospitals are as well.
Like i just said to slade, Federal PA laws dont cover everyone. You saying "all or none" doesnt help out your argument

I think he made some very fair examples. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. Used plenty that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

 

[TNHarley]

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.

PA laws dont cover everyone. There is an inconsistency for you.
People are who they are. Forced conformity doesnt eradicate problems. Its a temporary band aid that will probably create more.

If you look at the evolution over the past century, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights Movement, to today, I think you would see tremendous growth and acceptance in public perception. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to the majority, so I'd say that the "forced conformity" as you call has been rather successful so far and its been for the betterment of our country. Still plenty of work to do, which I hope can involve more community groups and charities and less big government

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

It may be suppressed for some old timers that grew up with segregation and Jim Crow but they are dying out. There may be some carry over for their children and grandchildren depending on how they were raised, however, I think it would be fair to say it is very much diluted. Children don't distinguish or judge based on race or religion, it is taught to them by family and society. Our society has grown much more accepting and inclusive which will have an effect on the next generations of children. If you really think that the same level of prejudice exists as did 100 years ago but it is simply suppressed then I really don't think you have a realistic theory.

I didnt say that. Not at all. But i understand why you thought that.
Prejudice is natural IMO. People like to be close to those that are alike. The premise of racism has been exercised for thousands of years.
Not just racism, even just not liking qualities of someone different.

 

[TNHarley]

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

 

[TNHarley]

I understand we have the laws, i am saying i dont support them. Individual liberty and private property are the main tenant to happiness.
I dont support jim crow. I do NOT support institutional discrimination of ANY kind.
Jim Crow was an ugly time, i am sure. Institutional discrimination is ugly in itself.
Yes, i am aware that people who dont support statism and forced conformity are dying out. Big government abusing their powers with force is becoming trendy.
BTW, thanks for chunking me in the racist pool, asshole. My opinion has nothing to do with racism or jim crow or whatever. It is about each individual doing what they want with their private property as long as it doesnt infringe on others rights.

And that's fine that you disagree. I am actually with you in many respects on that. But I see a big issue...


Someone claiming their freedom to not give medical assistance to someone in the ER because they are black or gay? Calling a cab and being late for an important meeting because he wouldn't give you a ride based on your race? What if the cook at your kids school won't make or serve your child a lunch over religious beliefs? Or their basketball coach saying "nope, you aren't Christian, get off my team"? What if your wife couldn't get dinner made because the only grocery store in town wouldn't let her shop?

You've got to protect all or none. And there's the issue. I really would say "protect all the Christian religous freedom, except in all of these categories where they have to provide life saving assistance"... But that's not legal for obvious reasons. It's got to be either all or none. Either we protect the rights of a police officer who won't enter your house to stop a rape because of his religious beliefs against you, or we don't protect those rights.

Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.
Besides schools are govt institutions. Alot of hospitals are as well.
Like i just said to slade, Federal PA laws dont cover everyone. You saying "all or none" doesnt help out your argument

I think he made some very fair examples. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. Used plenty that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

 

[Slash]

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

But doesn't the Declaration of Independence claim that all men are created equal. Wouldn't infringing upon that by actively denying one person's "pursuit of happiness" based on things like race or religion be something that kind of goes against the base of what the USA formed for?

I mean if I had a gay husband and took my kid to the movies and the guy at the ticket counter said "Sorry we don't serve your kind there", am I equal to heterosexuals? Is my pursuit of happiness being protected as an unalienable right?

I would say that person is actively taking away not just a right of mine, but an unalienable right. One of the top 3 rights (life and liberty being the other two) that the USA was founded on.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

But doesn't the Declaration of Independence claim that all men are created equal. Wouldn't infringing upon that by actively denying one person's "pursuit of happiness" based on things like race or religion be something that kind of goes against the base of what the USA formed for?

I mean if I had a gay husband and took my kid to the movies and the guy at the ticket counter said "Sorry we don't serve your kind there", am I equal to heterosexuals? Is my pursuit of happiness being protected as an unalienable right?

I would say that person is actively taking away not just a right of mine, but an unalienable right. One of the top 3 rights (life and liberty being the other two) that the USA was founded on.

Your premise is based off of you having entitlement to someone elses property. Which isnt correct. Or shouldnt be.
None of us should have a right to someone elses stuff.

 

[Slash]

Your premise is based off of you having entitlement to someone elses property. Which isnt correct. Or shouldnt be.
None of us should have a right to someone elses stuff.

Nice counter...

But when you open your property to the public as a movie theater does, aren't you actively opposing equality and someones right to pursue happiness if they show up and you allow an employee to refuse them service? I mean that Declaration wasn't just "The government will protect your right to life by not killing you, but if ya'll want to kill each other and take that away from each other, we are hands off". It was that's what the Government is there to protect, aren't they protecting those unalienable rights from anyone.

I mean what you are saying is ok, is if a town didn't like someone the privately owned businesses could get together and literally starve that group out of town by not providing any services or goods necessary for life.

And even if you think so still... that's fine, make it a gate at a federal park. Where the cashier at the entrance refuses to serve you because of your religion or race.

Make it a public bus, where the driver refuses to pick you up because he opposes your race or relgion based on his own religious beliefs.

 

[TNHarley]

Your premise is based off of you having entitlement to someone elses property. Which isnt correct. Or shouldnt be.
None of us should have a right to someone elses stuff.

Nice counter...

But when you open your property to the public as a movie theater does, aren't you actively opposing equality and someones right to pursue happiness if they show up and you allow an employee to refuse them service? I mean that Declaration wasn't just "The government will protect your right to life by not killing you, but if ya'll want to kill each other and take that away from each other, we are hands off". It was that's what the Government is there to protect, aren't they protecting those unalienable rights from anyone.

I mean what you are saying is ok, is if a town didn't like someone the privately owned businesses could get together and literally starve that group out of town by not providing any services or goods necessary for life.

And even if you think so still... that's fine, make it a gate at a federal park. Where the cashier at the entrance refuses to serve you because of your religion or race.

Make it a public bus, where the driver refuses to pick you up because he opposes your race or relgion based on his own religious beliefs.

Again, that would only be feasible if people were entitled to others property.
They could very well do that. If the town was that much of a collective asshole, those people would be better off to just move. I know i wouldnt want to live around people like that. Especially if i was the target! lol
Public buses are govt institutions arent they?
Just to be clear, i believe individuals should be able to discriminate against anything. Im not just arguing for race or religion. But any reason like National origin or, considering a few states, sexuality.

 

[Slade3200]

I am a small government guy, I am all for cutting needless regulations and supporting small business and individual freedoms where ever possible. When it comes to discrimination against minorities groups or women, I don't have any problem with our anti-discrimination laws. In my view our society is better when it can act civilly, respectfully and with equal treatment for all who live here. Those rules should not be hard for anybody to abide by and if they are then i'm sorry, they are probably going to live a pretty frustrated life in this country unless they can find a way to get passed it.

PA laws dont cover everyone. There is an inconsistency for you.
People are who they are. Forced conformity doesnt eradicate problems. Its a temporary band aid that will probably create more.

If you look at the evolution over the past century, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights Movement, to today, I think you would see tremendous growth and acceptance in public perception. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to the majority, so I'd say that the "forced conformity" as you call has been rather successful so far and its been for the betterment of our country. Still plenty of work to do, which I hope can involve more community groups and charities and less big government

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

It may be suppressed for some old timers that grew up with segregation and Jim Crow but they are dying out. There may be some carry over for their children and grandchildren depending on how they were raised, however, I think it would be fair to say it is very much diluted. Children don't distinguish or judge based on race or religion, it is taught to them by family and society. Our society has grown much more accepting and inclusive which will have an effect on the next generations of children. If you really think that the same level of prejudice exists as did 100 years ago but it is simply suppressed then I really don't think you have a realistic theory.

I didnt say that. Not at all. But i understand why you thought that.
Prejudice is natural IMO. People like to be close to those that are alike. The premise of racism has been exercised for thousands of years.
Not just racism, even just not liking qualities of someone different.

My girl has studied child psychology for years. She has a masters degree from one the best institutions in the nation and many years of practical experience working as a school counselor. She has done many studies on this and found that children do not possess that prejudice at a young age. They play with kids of all races and don't just gravitate towards "their own kind". They are curious about kids that look different if they haven't had exposure to them, and it is very important about how they interpret that curiosity. If their parent reacts in a way that instills fear or danger about the curiosity then they may develop racist tendencies. If parents teaches inclusiveness and equality when questions arise then those kids will respond more openly. It doesn't even need to be race. It could be hair color, sex, height, kids with birthmarks, or disabilities. Fact remains that racism is a learned trait and it can start at a very young age.

 

[Slade3200]

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

 

[TNHarley]

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

What right would that be?

 

[Slade3200]

And that's fine that you disagree. I am actually with you in many respects on that. But I see a big issue...


Someone claiming their freedom to not give medical assistance to someone in the ER because they are black or gay? Calling a cab and being late for an important meeting because he wouldn't give you a ride based on your race? What if the cook at your kids school won't make or serve your child a lunch over religious beliefs? Or their basketball coach saying "nope, you aren't Christian, get off my team"? What if your wife couldn't get dinner made because the only grocery store in town wouldn't let her shop?

You've got to protect all or none. And there's the issue. I really would say "protect all the Christian religous freedom, except in all of these categories where they have to provide life saving assistance"... But that's not legal for obvious reasons. It's got to be either all or none. Either we protect the rights of a police officer who won't enter your house to stop a rape because of his religious beliefs against you, or we don't protect those rights.

Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.
Besides schools are govt institutions. Alot of hospitals are as well.
Like i just said to slade, Federal PA laws dont cover everyone. You saying "all or none" doesnt help out your argument

I think he made some very fair examples. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. Used plenty that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

I never said that they were entitled to other peoples property. I said that they are entitled to engage in commerce with any licensed business free from discrimination. That is the law of the land.

 

[TNHarley]

Those examples dont change my mind. Freedom isnt free.
Besides schools are govt institutions. Alot of hospitals are as well.
Like i just said to slade, Federal PA laws dont cover everyone. You saying "all or none" doesnt help out your argument

I think he made some very fair examples. I'd like to hear a better counter argument from you other than saying your mind isn't changed. Explain how his examples are incorrect. Used plenty that weren't government institutions that you didn't comment on. Is that really the type of society you want to mold here in America?

There arent correct or incorrect. I stated that freedom isnt free. IDK what else i should have said..
Thats the way society was supposed to be here. For all you know, our society could be more advanced and acceptable.
Freedom accomplishes things. And so does social disregard and social assassination.

I don't think you are looking at it from both sides. You think a shop owner should be free to service whoever they want. The flip side is saying that the black person that the shop owner is denying service to should be free to purchase and engage in commerce like all other citizens. Either way there is a loss of freedom.

People are not entitled to other peoples property. Rather, they shouldnt be.

I never said that they were entitled to other peoples property. I said that they are entitled to engage in commerce with any licensed business free from discrimination. That is the law of the land.

I understand. This whole conversation is me explaining and justifying my position on the laws i do not support lol.
So it being the law is irrelevant to this.

 

[Slade3200]

That doesnt mean peoples thinking has evolved. It could just be suppressed.
IDK if "suppression" is a good thing.

I don't know. Isn't anything short of complete anarchy just suppression? I mean "don't steal" doesn't change a kleptomaniacs thinking, but if it suppresses their taking action on those thoughts I think that's a good thing.

Well, thats true. However, the concept of individual liberty ends when someone elses rights are infringed upon. Stealing does just that.

Many would consider denying a person a meal just because they are black as something that denies their rights as well.

What right would that be?

Slash just said it very articulately a few posts ago. Our inalienable right to pursue happiness under the premise that all men are created equal.