The Constitution in a Multicultural Society

[M.D. Rawlings]

...the public accommodation codes based on ideology/behavior imposed by leftists in violation of inalienable rights, you know, the inherent concerns of the First Amendment regarding the prerogatives of free-association and private property.

Oh, right, I forgot the Fourteenth Amendment

You're under the impression you can school me on constitutional and case law?



Oh, wrong, Justice Know Nothing, what you forgot was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) in which the Court upheld the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. The Court upheld the Act under the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

The several states have always had the power to assert public accommodation on most businesses and commercial transactions, but public accommodation asserted by states on the basis of ideological or behavioral concerns touching on the First Amendment prerogative of free-association in noncommercial transactions in both the public and private arenas were struck down in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale (2000), respectively, and rightly so!

Challenges based on the First Amendment prerogatives of free-association and private property against public accommodation codes that clearly violate the same in commercial transactions have yet to be heard by SCOTUS, and the Fourteenth Amendment is not your friend should the Court strike down these abominations.

Let me explain the politics to you. Oh, and, NYCarbineer, turn your eyes away from this post, as I wouldn't want to overload your pea-sized brain over a matter that necessarily exceeds your 20-second attention span.

As I have written elsewhere:

The reliably conservative members of the Court were unwilling to risk a precedent-setting decision on Kennedy, even though he did come down on the side of the majority in "the Boy Scouts of America" case, which, by the way, would be the most compellingly obvious precedent for the Court's ratio decidendi were it to ever hear the case and decide it the proper way in the future.

In other words, SCOTUS's refusal to hear Elane Photography's appeal is not at all indicative of anything having to do with the existence of Public Accommodation, as the matter pertains to the imperatives of the Bill of Rights, namely, the First Amendment. The alleged constitutionality of Public Accommodation in and of itself is settled law. —M. D. Rawlings​

Also:

Public Accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation that provides no exemptions in deference to the inalienable rights of the First Amendment in commercial transactions has not been addressed by the federal courts in any binding way whatsoever, let alone addressed by the Supreme Court.

The Court's decision not to hear a recent challenge is not indicative of what many leftist foolishly believe, and the Court’s decision not to hear this challenge, doesn't mean it won't hear this challenged in a similar case in the future.

The eventual hearing of the challenge in commercial transactions, when the conservative faction thinks the Court is ready to make an objectively valid decision, will be unambiguously predicated on the First Amendment, albeit, in all likelihood, exerted against the several states via the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause which requires, as a matter of settled case law, for all of the states to observe the imperatives of the Bill of Rights as well. —M. D. Rawlings​

After you've digested that, I'll give you the rest of the pertinent case law, copied and pasted from another one of my posts on this forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

You're under the impression you can school me on constitutional and case law?



Oh, wrong, Justice Know Nothing, what you forgot was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) in which the Court upheld the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. The Court upheld the Act under the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

.

The fact is that the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause was sufficient to uphold the Act, but regarding the 14th Amendment, the Court said:

"This is not to say that the remaining authority upon which it acted was not adequate, a question upon which we do not pass..."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D. and his buds don't get to pick and choose through the Constitution at the expense of its other parts. The document is organic and integrated. The weakness of their point is the inconsistency of positions. For instance, they want federal protection for gun rights and not leave them at the state level to regulate but want state rights to deny marriage equality.

Apples and oranges.

First, the Constitution does not grant the power to redefine marriage to either the federal government or to the governments of the several states regardless of what the Court absurdly asserted in Windsor. Nature and Nature's God defined marriage. The notion that the state may redefine it would be risible if it were not tyrannical with repercussions that the likes of you will never understand.

The states have always had the power to regulate the institution of marriage, but regulating the institution and redefining it are not the same power. The only governing entity that can universally uphold the imperatives of natural law on which this nation was founded is the federal government, and until the Court struck down Section Three of DOMA in Windsor, the federal government sure as hell did have the power to reject any one of the several states' attempts to redefine marriage, let alone impose its redefinition on all the people of the Republic in terms of federal laws and programs.

But that was before Windsor.

It remains to be seen if the Court is going to compel all the states to recognize "homosexual marriage" via the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[

You're under the impression you can school me on constitutional and case law?



Oh, wrong, Justice Know Nothing, what you forgot was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) in which the Court upheld the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. The Court upheld the Act under the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

.

The fact is that the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause was sufficient to uphold the Act, but regarding the 14th Amendment, the Court said:

"This is not to say that the remaining authority upon which it acted was not adequate, a question upon which we do not pass..."

So? The fact remains that the statutory construct of public accommodation doesn't trump the constitutional imperatives of the Bill of Rights' inalienable rights, which is something you leftists can't seem to get through your thick skulls, let alone the firestorm that would ensue if the federal government were to attempt to universally impose public accommodation on the basis of anything beyond race, color, gender or national origin.

The matter goes to the First Amendment, not to the Fourteenth.

Let me help you. . . .

[The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down] . . . narrowly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or color. Since 1964, of course, the federal government has more broadly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. Despite the rhetorical shoe shine of wedge-issue baiting, the reason that leftists don't want to be more aggressive at the federal level, well, except for the naïve among them . . . is because that would provoke a nationwide reaction that would threaten to bring down the more obnoxious infringements on the prerogatives of free-association and private property asserted by blue states around the country under the banner of Public Accommodation.

. . . Since 1875, states have passed variously more aggressive antidiscrimination codes. At the state level, we now have prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, marital status, familial status, disability, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression. . . . The list goes on in the District of Columbia's public accommodation code to include things like matriculation, political affiliation, source of income and more. It's a real shmorgishborg of the kind of things that give leftists goose bumps and the rest of us indigestion.

(It's been rumored for years that the District of Columbia's wont is to compel business owners to accommodate those who practice their fetish for kitchen sinks in public, as long as the later is firmly secured to their persons so as not to endanger others upon the moment of . . . shall we say, completion. A fetish for kitchen sinks is one thing, but, come on, flying kitchen sinks in a crowded restaurant would be dangerous. Geez.)

As the Court observed in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) and reiterated in Boy Scouts of American v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2001), public accommodation has become so broadly advanced that "the potential for conflict between state public accommodation laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations" has become a serious concern.

In addition to the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the inextricable link between First Amendment liberties and free-association, and the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the First Amendment liberties of corporations as individuals, which silly leftists think was asserted out of nowhere in the Hobby Lobby case, when in fact the matter's been settled in case law for years: we have the First Amendment liberties of artistic expression (National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 602 [1998]), coupled with the freedom of expression in "the form quiet persuasion, inculcation of traditional values, instruction of the young and community service" (Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 636 [1984]).

But even more emphatically, the First Amendment "protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster . . . an idea they find morally objectionable" (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 [1977]). The government "may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees" in order to "produce a society free of . . . biases" (Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos, citing W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 [1943]). Such "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control" (W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette). The First Amendment "prohibits improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas" (prior restraint) and the "concomitant freedom not to speak publicly" (Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 11 [1986]).

Hence, the right to dissent from the impertinent mores of government, more at, the right of the individual to tell the denizens of the herd mentality to take their boorishly moralistic drivel and shove it! —M. D. Rawlings

The whole post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9705552/

​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Really? How's that?

In the meantime, while you dream up more lies/slogans along that line, let's talk about the balkanizing collectivism of Lefty's state church, i.e., the public education system, the speech codes imposed by leftists on college campuses, and the public accommodation codes based on ideology/behavior imposed by leftists in violation of inalienable rights, you know, the inherent concerns of the First Amendment regarding the prerogatives of free-association and private property.

This doesn't make any sense and is comprehensively ignorant.

Yeah. That's what you always say before I crush you, as I did here when I busted you in yet another attempt among many to subvert case law on this forum: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9681421/.

Private colleges and universities are at liberty to establish codes of conduct with regard to speech considered unacceptable, having nothing to do with 'liberals,' and in accordance with the First Amendment right to free association.

The banal stated as if it were profound.

Notwithstanding, speech codes intended to preempt the sociopolitical expressions of classical liberalism or, even worse, deem the expressions of the same to be hate speech, as opposed to codes of conduct intended to promote the civil exchange of ideas, on any historically prominent, private institution at the collegiate level is moonbat obnoxious; and codes that stifle sociopolitical expressions that offend lefty’s sensibilities relative to his phony “diversity” of cultural Marxism are rampant in this country.

Public colleges and universities are subject to First Amendment restrictions, where 'speech codes' have been routinely invalidated by the Federal courts. In Doe v. University of Michigan,721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989), for example, a Federal district court determined that a University of Michigan policy prohibiting speech deemed offensive was overbroad and therefore un-Constitutional.

As if that has slowed down or stopped leftist ideologues, the academic brown shirts of cultural Marxism, in private or public colleges and universities:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303465004579322773368846510

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2936#.VAuNc7l0yM8

http://www.thefire.org/federal-government-mandates-unconstitutional-speech-codes-at-colleges-and-universities-nationwide/

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=217

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_free_speech.html

And that's just a small handful of the links I could attached to this post.

Consequently your claim that 'speech codes' are being 'imposed' on public colleges and universities is a lie.

Your claim that they are not being imposed in public institutions is depraved.

With regard to public accommodations laws, such measures are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the Supreme Court has held that public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, in no way 'violating' inalienable rights, nor 'violating' the First Amendment right to free association (see: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)).

Stow it. We both know what Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States goes to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of benign morphological traits/features or national origin. It does not go to discrimination based on the ideological/behavioral concerns that would impinge upon the pertinent First Amendment prerogatives of free-association and private property.

For those still in doubt about what the actual judicial and political realities are see posts #261 and #264: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9754438/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9754991/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

PC is weaseling again.

Jake is lying again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. you had your silly arguments handed to you on a platter, and if you are in denial if you think she is not weaseling.

Doesn't matter. This will be over by June next year as SCOTUS allows either the appellate courts to rule for marriage equality or does it for the entire country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

You're under the impression you can school me on constitutional and case law?



Oh, wrong, Justice Know Nothing, what you forgot was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) in which the Court upheld the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. The Court upheld the Act under the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

.

The fact is that the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause was sufficient to uphold the Act, but regarding the 14th Amendment, the Court said:

"This is not to say that the remaining authority upon which it acted was not adequate, a question upon which we do not pass..."

So?

What do you mean 'so?' The Court didn't apply the 14th amendment because it didn't need to. The Court made it CLEAR that was why it didn't apply the 14th amendment.

 

[Jroc]

M. D. you had your silly arguments handed to you on a platter, and if you are in denial if you think she is not weaseling.

Doesn't matter. This will be over by June next year as SCOTUS allows either the appellate courts to rule for marriage equality or does it for the entire country.

I want "marriage equality" for my polygamist friends

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

M. D. you had your silly arguments handed to you on a platter, and if you are in denial if you think she is not weaseling.

Doesn't matter. This will be over by June next year as SCOTUS allows either the appellate courts to rule for marriage equality or does it for the entire country.

I want "marriage equality" for my polygamist friends

This doesn't make any sense.


No state's marriage law can accommodate three or more persons, they can accommodate two persons – same- or opposite sex. This is why measures prohibiting same-sex couples from accessing marriage law are un-Constitutional, because they seek to deny same-sex couples access to laws they're eligible to participate in, absent a rational basis and a proper legislative end.


That's not the case with 'polygamy,' which is nothing more than 'living together.' Unlike same-sex couples, 'polygamists' aren't being denied access to marriage law, there's simply no law that exists which can accommodate three or more persons in 'marriage.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamous do not marry as groups, as a series of marriages with two persons.

Jroc, did you know that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Multiculturalism has always been present from Roanoke, where it worked out badly for the English until today where all Americans receive the same entitlements that most often wen to the whites.

Now all have to compete.

 

[JoeNormal]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"



'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

Society? I thought right wingers rejected the notion that society even exists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"



'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

Society? I thought right wingers rejected the notion that society even exists.

As a result of this post, you have no basis for ever using the word "thought."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

*Sigh*

In the above, I see that I transitioned a few portions of my previous posts for the purpose of this OP badly.
For the sake of clarity. . . .

Post #265 should read: "We both know what Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States goes to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of benign morphological traits/features or national origin, goes to."

Post #261 should read: ". . . doesn't mean it won't hear this challenge in a similar case in the future."

Post #263 should read: ". . . the federal government sure as hell did have the power to reject any one of the several states' attempts to redefine marriage or to reject any one of the several states' imposing its redefinition of marriage on all the people of the Republic in terms of federal laws and programs."

Sorry for the confusion, but I was short on time and didn't review these transitions carefully.

 

[Carla_Danger]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"



'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

More racist bullshit. I don't have freedom of speech at work, and unless you own your own company, nobody does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"



'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

More racist bullshit. I don't have freedom of speech at work, and unless you own your own company, nobody does.

Perhaps it's because you simply say dumb things, as in this post.

 

[Carla_Danger]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"



'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

More racist bullshit. I don't have freedom of speech at work, and unless you own your own company, nobody does.

Perhaps it's because you simply say dumb things, as in this post.

It's a stupid fucking thread. I can't talk to our buyers any way I want, and expect to keep my job. #1 rule at work....no talking politics or religion.



2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The fact is, the Constitution, the 'law of the land,' may not be consistent with what many wish for, a multicultural society.

2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

a. On the other hand, upon entering this nation illegally, one is perfectly able to reside, even as an antagonist, and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship.
See Emerson, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us."




3. Those who doubt that we can have a successful 'multicultural society' advocate an alternative idea, e.g., we should desire a political culture based on pride in this nation, with the country as the object of a common loyalty, and a secular view of law in which religion is a concern of family and society, but not of the state.
My view.

a. As a group, Liberals are largely in favor of the balkanization that follows multiculturalism.

"Liberals care less - Pew divided their sample into different categories across the left-right political spectrum. When asked if respondents “often feel proud to be American,” a majority of strong liberals, 60 percent, said no.
The only group that solidly agreed with the statement was conservatives, ranging from 72 percent to 81 percent."
Stunner: 44 percent not proud to be American | WashingtonExaminer.com





4. Often, the center of the argument is the question of religion. Is there room for religion in the public arena???

My pal, ErroneousJoe, wrote this: "And if you Wingnuts think theocracy is so bad, why do you keep trying to impose one here?"

It seems obvious that, for the Left, religion should be excluded from all state related functions, that there must be some sort of fanatical expulsion of faith that has been practiced in America.
Not so: Religion should invest social institutions in which citizens engage: there is no reason that prayers should not occur in schools, which, after all, are not political institutions but are social institutions funded by the state. No one that I know of is endorsing religious control of the state.

a. The Constitution takes precedence over religious loyalties.
That is true for two of the three major religions.




5. Why the sudden need for 'multi-cultures' in the nation?
What is the culture of America?

Enterprise, freedom, and pursuit of success. What follows is this announcement when viewing success: "Congratulations! It is wonderful to see what you've built!" Our heritage is one in which freedom of the individual is the highest aim of government.
Scruton, "The West and The Rest."




At least, that was true in an earlier iteration of this nation.

a. It is more than surprising to see Americans tricked into believing in the collective, with the motto "You didn't build that!"



'Shocking' is the term that comes to mind.

More racist bullshit. I don't have freedom of speech at work, and unless you own your own company, nobody does.

Perhaps it's because you simply say dumb things, as in this post.

It's a stupid fucking thread. I can't talk to our buyers any way I want, and expect to keep my job. #1 rule at work....no talking politics or religion.



2. The Constitution promises freedom of thought, and of speech, yet any criticism of minority cultures, or any aspect of same endorsed by the elites, is censored from the public debate as gauche, impolite, ignorant, .....even cause for dismissal from one's employment, e.g., BrendanEich.

1. Your language certainly supports the conclusion of my earlier post.

2.If the post is as you describe it, you're in the right place.