"your individual liberty ends at my nose"

[Mac1958]

Jim Crow? Right to the straw man arguments, huh?

I'm not fond of bigots on either end of the spectrum, and there are many.
.

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

 

[bodecea]

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

Beating your wife on the courthouse steps on sunday is legal in TN, but nobody does it. JS

So....that's what your argument boils down to.

 

[jillian]

I can't imagine you think those signs are ok

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

they did complain. they lost. end of story.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not sure what you mean, what signs?
.

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

they did complain. they lost. end of story.

Do me a favor and answer one question.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but do you at least understand my position?
.

 

[jillian]

I've referred to it repeatedly through this thread. I guess I thought it would be in there somewhere... sorry.

if a business doesn't want to serve people, eg, blacks, jews, gays, the signs in the windows will say (as they did during jim crow) "no blacks, no jews, no gays"

that's not the world we should be living in but will be if the "i'll pretend my religion requires me to be a bigot" crowd gets its way.

and I said, I can't imagine you would think those signs are ok.

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

they did complain. they lost. end of story.

Do me a favor and answer one question.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but do you at least understand my position?
.

you know I understand it. I think it's messed up. and what's more messed up is how many of the people shrieking about their "freedom" to be bigots are all for government telling women what to do with their bodies. they aren't even real libertarians.

 

[Contumacious]

Is this an abortion thread?

Yep.

The Constitution (1787) was aborted in 1935.

according to whom? not the Court, that's for sure.

but pretend you know more than constitutional scholars.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.


I see , so the Honorable James Clark McReynolds was not a Constitutional scholar?


.

One guy....one bitter guy. No wonder you keep bringing him up. Birds of a feather.

The founding fathers fought England, created a free constitutional republic , but the motherfuckers are free to ignore it to the point where we are about to elect an avowed socialist whose policies I will be forced to obey.

But freedom loving people should not be bitter.

What a stupid motherfucker.


.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course they're not okay, but the question is what is done about it, if anything.

For me, they're delightful little indications of the type of person who is running that business, and it's very nice of them to so clearly tell me they don't want my business, either.

I'd rather know that they're bigots and not give them my business, than not know they're bigots and give them my business. Easy call there.

Would I punish them for being bigots? Nope, punishing them won't change them, it will just make them martyrs for other bigots. And as I said, they're already miserable.

Now, real world, we might only see a couple of such signs. Gays, most possible. Maybe Muslims, who knows. I'll let 'em stew in it.
.

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

they did complain. they lost. end of story.

Do me a favor and answer one question.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but do you at least understand my position?
.

you know I understand it. I think it's messed up. and what's more messed up is how many of the people shrieking about their "freedom" to be bigots are all for government telling women what to do with their bodies. they aren't even real libertarians.

Well, I don't have much use for them, either. "Freedom" is one of many ridiculously over-used platitudes I hear pretty much daily.

But at least you understand what I'm saying, I'll have to be satisfied with that.
.

 

[Contumacious]

then why doesn't yours end at mine?

Not under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


So under FDR's constitution whether or not you have an individual privilege depends on the congresscritters , executive discretion or 5-4 majorities in the so-called SCOTUS


Under fascism you do not have rights - you are allowed privileges out of the goodness of their hearts.


.

It was the GOP who admired Mussolini.

Actually Hitler and Mussolini admired FDR


.

 

[jillian]

the law is pretty settled in regard to this. turning back the clock to 1955. If you think it would only be a "few signs", that's silly. it would be all over the same parts of the country that liked their jim crow laws (hence the analogy).

that's what happens in the real world and it's illegal. so there ya go.

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

they did complain. they lost. end of story.

Do me a favor and answer one question.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but do you at least understand my position?
.

you know I understand it. I think it's messed up. and what's more messed up is how many of the people shrieking about their "freedom" to be bigots are all for government telling women what to do with their bodies. they aren't even real libertarians.

Well, I don't have much use for them, either. "Freedom" is one of many ridiculously over-used platitudes I hear pretty much daily.

But at least you understand what I'm saying, I'll have to be satisfied with that.
.

thanks. and at least you understand what i'm saying. we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

as for the whiners, I see them as foot-stamping children demanding that mommy let them do whatever they want.... have to buy two 15 ounce cups of sugar water instead of one 30 ounce cup, time to temper tantrum.

 

[Anathema]

I hope you find happy

Happy doesn't often exist on this side of Eternity. Nor us it intended to.

 

[TNHarley]

I've never argued about the law. The law is the law. Stipulated.

But someone has to complain first. That's when the law comes into it.

They have to choose to complain, they don't have to.

That's all I'm saying.
.

they did complain. they lost. end of story.

Do me a favor and answer one question.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but do you at least understand my position?
.

you know I understand it. I think it's messed up. and what's more messed up is how many of the people shrieking about their "freedom" to be bigots are all for government telling women what to do with their bodies. they aren't even real libertarians.

Well, I don't have much use for them, either. "Freedom" is one of many ridiculously over-used platitudes I hear pretty much daily.

But at least you understand what I'm saying, I'll have to be satisfied with that.
.

as for the whiners, I see them as foot-stamping children demanding that mommy let them do whatever they want.... have to buy two 15 ounce cups of sugar water instead of one 30 ounce cup, time to temper tantrum.

Considering the OP, that is REAL fuckin rich.

 

[Anathema]

yeah, but think of how happy you'd be hating everyone else in the world.

Again, it's not about happiness. It's about Right and Wrong.

 

[jillian]

then why doesn't yours end at mine?

Not under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


So under FDR's constitution whether or not you have an individual privilege depends on the congresscritters , executive discretion or 5-4 majorities in the so-called SCOTUS


Under fascism you do not have rights - you are allowed privileges out of the goodness of their hearts.


.

It was the GOP who admired Mussolini.

Actually Hitler and Mussolini admired FDR


.

a lunatic opinion piece from a 9/11 troofer?

 

[jillian]

yeah, but think of how happy you'd be hating everyone else in the world.

Again, it's not about happiness. It's about Right and Wrong.

you stand on that kiddo.

 

[Anathema]

Some of the Westerners who have joined ISIS were raised as Christians and converted to the Branch Davidian version of Islam because it was the cool thing for batshit losers to do. So it isn't like you would be the first.

Again, I have no use for ANY form of organized religion. Its about Right and Wrong.

 

[Anathema]

poor babies.... how sad that you can't humiliate and denigrate other people who want to eat at the lunch counter.

So why can a restaurant owner turn me away, as a gun owner but I couldn't turn a homosexual away from a restaurant that I owned?

 

[Anathema]

you stand on that kiddo.

I always have and always will.

 

[Seawytch]

Go ahead and get rid of PA laws. Nobody is stopping you. I think y'all should work on the Federal law though instead of fighting ONLY local and state laws (talkin' to you "states rights" folks).

Because if you don't go after the biggie, Title II of the CRA, it doesn't look like you give a shit about individual liberty and just hate queers.

 

[Seawytch]

poor babies.... how sad that you can't humiliate and denigrate other people who want to eat at the lunch counter.

So why can a restaurant owner turn me away, as a gun owner but I couldn't turn a homosexual away from a restaurant that I owned?

To start with, whether you can turn away a gay depends on the state or locality where your business is.

In those places, gay is a protected class. Gun owners aren't.

A better question is why can a Christian refuse to serve me in about half the states but I have to serve a Christian in all 50?

 

[bodecea]

then why doesn't yours end at mine?

Not under FDR's Fascist Constitution of 1935


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


So under FDR's constitution whether or not you have an individual privilege depends on the congresscritters , executive discretion or 5-4 majorities in the so-called SCOTUS


Under fascism you do not have rights - you are allowed privileges out of the goodness of their hearts.


.

It was the GOP who admired Mussolini.

Actually Hitler and Mussolini admired FDR


.

But it was the GOP who admired Hitler and Mussolini and made speeches in Congress saying so....those speeches are now public record.