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.
The question wasn't aimed at me, but yes.
We have freedom of association per the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The government should not force people to associate against their will. Anyone who is stupid enough to deny their business to others is self-destructive, but the Constitution isn't there to protect an individual from himself.
Glad to see an honest enough conservative/libertarian that admits it's OK to discriminate, we need more of them like you
But YES the Constitution IS there to protect the minority from the majority!
The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
STFU with your totalitarian thought control. You have no authority to tell me what the Constitution means. There is no equal right to be liked. There is a human right to choose one's associations.
....
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States , for ex...wasn't about "being liked."
`The question wasn't aimed at me, but yes.
We have freedom of association per the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The government should not force people to associate against their will. Anyone who is stupid enough to deny their business to others is self-destructive, but the Constitution isn't there to protect an individual from himself.
Glad to see an honest enough conservative/libertarian that admits it's OK to discriminate, we need more of them like you
But YES the Constitution IS there to protect the minority from the majority!
The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
STFU with your totalitarian thought control. You have no authority to tell me what the Constitution means. There is no equal right to be liked. There is a human right to choose one's associations.
....
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States , for ex...wasn't about "being liked."
Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.[/QUOTE]Wallace was a progressive.Liberal or Conservative?
/oops.
No the Constitution ISN'T there to protect FROM ONLY Gov't power!
If you wife prefers to be examined by a female gynecologist can the government force her to be examined by a male gynecologist in order to prevent her from being a damn,dirty, disgusting sexual discriminator?
Good spin, NOTHING relevant to YOUR argument however. Try again
Entirely relevant. You can't counter it other than by crying "that's different."
Glad to see an honest enough conservative/libertarian that admits it's OK to discriminate, we need more of them like you
But YES the Constitution IS there to protect the minority from the majority!
The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
STFU with your totalitarian thought control. You have no authority to tell me what the Constitution means. There is no equal right to be liked. There is a human right to choose one's associations.
....
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States , for ex...wasn't about "being liked."
Now you're appealing to law? Dred Scott was law. I suppose that Dred Scott settled the issue once and for all.
The battle for human rights is always ongoing. We will throw off the jackboot of liberal totalitarianism that is stopping on our throats.
The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
STFU with your totalitarian thought control. You have no authority to tell me what the Constitution means. There is no equal right to be liked. There is a human right to choose one's associations.
....
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States , for ex...wasn't about "being liked."
Now you're appealing to law? Dred Scott was law. I suppose that Dred Scott settled the issue once and for all.
The battle for human rights is always ongoing. We will throw off the jackboot of liberal totalitarianism that is stopping on our throats.
The Constitution is law. Are you throwing the Constitution overboard?
No the Constitution ISN'T there to protect FROM ONLY Gov't power!
If you wife prefers to be examined by a female gynecologist can the government force her to be examined by a male gynecologist in order to prevent her from being a damn,dirty, disgusting sexual discriminator?
Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.Wallace was a progressive.Liberal or Conservative?
/oops.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
STFU with your totalitarian thought control. You have no authority to tell me what the Constitution means. There is no equal right to be liked. There is a human right to choose one's associations.
....
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States , for ex...wasn't about "being liked."
Now you're appealing to law? Dred Scott was law. I suppose that Dred Scott settled the issue once and for all.
The battle for human rights is always ongoing. We will throw off the jackboot of liberal totalitarianism that is stopping on our throats.
The Constitution is law. Are you throwing the Constitution overboard?
The fact that the Constitution is law hasn't stopped the Progs from trying to destroy it.
On Saturday, Donna Brazile, the vice-chair of voter registration and participation for the Democratic Party, said on Twitter that the United States needs to scrap its current Constitution and replace it in order to save American democracy. She linked to a Salon article that claims the current Constitution is "shaking in its boots."
"We need a new constitution," Brazile tweeted. "Here’s how we save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent."
DNC s Donna Brazile calls for new Constitution to save American democracy - National Policy Issues Examiner.com
Well, Dumbass, the guys that shot his ass were SEALs and they don't vote Democrat. Not anymore. No since this shithead has been in office.We all know that the political parties were different at the start of the 1960s than they are today. Geographically rooted in the South, the Democrats were a strange coalition of northern racial liberals and southern segregationists. The Republican Party was centered in the Midwest and Northeast and was, in the aggregate, far more racially liberal than the Democrats.
In just 8 years, the number of liberal Republicans in Congress fell by 75 percent and the number of conservative Republicans quintupled. The policy preferences of the two parties essentially flipped. As Democrats moved sharply left on matters of race, the GOP delegation moved even more dramatically in the opposite direction.
---------------------------------------------------------
Republicans had the nerve to try to take credit for taking out Bin Laden.
Is it any surprise Right Wingernut "Cons" would try to take credit for ending slavery?
Trying to take credit for things they didn't do is all they have.
When you think "Right Wing Conservative" you don't think of science or building things or education or inventions and so on. You think of suppression, lies, terror, war, blocking healthcare, discrimination, let him die and so on.
Glad to see an honest enough conservative/libertarian that admits it's OK to discriminate, we need more of them like you
But YES the Constitution IS there to protect the minority from the majority!
The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
You clearly have no idea what The Constitution is.
What? Still pining for the 3/5th clause?
You are disgusting. That is not at all what I said...but as usual, you leftwing loons put everything through a Racist Filter.
If you could think logically and consistently about the principles in The Constitution, you'd understand how Slavery is actually a violation of one's freedom of association.
"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.Too funny by half.
Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.
Here's what you don't know:
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
The Democratic party split. Over time the GOP took over the conservative wing of the Democratic party and it effectively disappeared.
So what? Keep your eyes on the ball, boy.
Dot com claimed the following " All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965"
Simple question, is he right or wrong in making that claim?What you actually see is disgust with racial pandering that has kept people dependent with an entitlement mentality. Yes, there is scorn towards people who think they are entitled to free shit merely because they are breathing. Something you may not get.My morning fix. Republicans still trying to convince the world that they are the real freedom lovers and friends of minorities. The posts one these forums dripping with hatred towards minorities and blacks that aren't walter williams clones are good evidence of the opposite feelings of republicans. All the efforts to stop early voting in places like Ohio, more evidence. The scorn towards blacks in Detroit that now can't pay their water bills. The blaming of people on welfare and other safety nets as the cause for America's economic woes and not one word about the freebies corporate america and the very wealthy get. Nice try repubs, but it appears the blacks and many ordinary working people aren't buying the crap you're peddling.
Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?
The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.
In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.
STFU with your totalitarian thought control. You have no authority to tell me what the Constitution means. There is no equal right to be liked. There is a human right to choose one's associations.
....
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States , for ex...wasn't about "being liked."
Now you're appealing to law? Dred Scott was law. I suppose that Dred Scott settled the issue once and for all.
The battle for human rights is always ongoing. We will throw off the jackboot of liberal totalitarianism that is stopping on our throats.
The Constitution is law. Are you throwing the Constitution overboard?
Do you like George Bush? He's a humanitarian giant in Africa for his efforts to fight AIDS on that continent. A stopped clock gives the correct time twice per day.No the Constitution ISN'T there to protect FROM ONLY Gov't power!
If you wife prefers to be examined by a female gynecologist can the government force her to be examined by a male gynecologist in order to prevent her from being a damn,dirty, disgusting sexual discriminator?
I love you how you people are taking the side of those the OP meant to attack.
We all know that the political parties were different at the start of the 1960s than they are today. Geographically rooted in the South, the Democrats were a strange coalition of northern racial liberals and southern segregationists. The Republican Party was centered in the Midwest and Northeast and was, in the aggregate, far more racially liberal than the Democrats.
In just 8 years, the number of liberal Republicans in Congress fell by 75 percent and the number of conservative Republicans quintupled. The policy preferences of the two parties essentially flipped. As Democrats moved sharply left on matters of race, the GOP delegation moved even more dramatically in the opposite direction.
---------------------------------------------------------
Republicans had the nerve to try to take credit for taking out Bin Laden.
Is it any surprise Right Wingernut "Cons" would try to take credit for ending slavery?
Trying to take credit for things they didn't do is all they have.
When you think "Right Wing Conservative" you don't think of science or building things or education or inventions and so on. You think of suppression, lies, terror, war, blocking healthcare, discrimination, let him die and so on.
Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.Wallace was a progressive.Liberal or Conservative?
/oops.
Indeed, Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
The success of the black entrepreneurial class during the Reagan era was rivaled only by the gains of the black middle class.
In fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels.
All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor.
The impressive growth of the black middle class during the 1980s was attributable in no small part to the explosive growth of jobs under Reagan, which benefited blacks disproportionately.
Indeed, between 1982 and 1988, total black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.
Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.
During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
The burgeoning of the black professional, managerial and executive ranks during the 1980s coincided with a steady growth of the black student population at the nation's colleges and universities in the 1980s.
"It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate,"
That would have made Wallace a GOPper -- and poor boedicchhheeea wouldn't be able to point to a picture with an arrow that says Wallace ---> "Democrat" and run with scissors and scream hey you history 'avissssionsionists!
JUST ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? LOL
