Where did anyone get the "right" to eat on another person's property? Does Ron Paul have a right to be in the Congressional Black Caucus? What about Lebron James playing in the women's basketball association?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Where did anyone get the "right" to eat on another person's property? Does Ron Paul have a right to be in the Congressional Black Caucus? What about Lebron James playing in the women's basketball association?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
No, I don't support racism after all...
The law allows for private clubs to be racist in their practices within the private clubs.
Membership does have it privileges...much different from a business that is supposedly open to the public.
Yes you do - you said it's ok to be racist in private. And you were saying that people who wouldn't criminalize private racism were doing so because they themselves were racist. Therefore you must be racist too.
And just here you've supported a racist law which allows racist clubs to exist. Either racism should be illegal or it shouldn't - just hiding behind closed doors doesn't make racism any more acceptable, surely? Why can't other people join the club too, isn't that their right?
Also, no one wants to acknowledge the inconvenient fact that only 1.5% of Americans owned slaves, yet 25% of free blacks owned 10 or more slaves with just over 50% owning at least one. Also that slavery was also being practiced in America before whites every showed up. It was also being practiced in Europe.
PatternRec
Guest
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
You think it is that simple...
Fine.
Go ahead, open a business that rejects customers and refuses them service on the basis of their race...see how that works out...
"Problem is you never give a straight answer thinking it's a clever hedge against losing. But what that really says is that you don't know what you are talking about."
Oh yes, you sure have it all figured out...don't you...
That would mean you are right, wouldn't it?
That would mean I am wrong, right?
You are losing...and don't even know it...
Go ahead, open a business that rejects customers and refuses them service on the basis of their race...see how that works out...
Now, now.
Simply site where in the Civil Rights Act where your example of a music teacher scenario is prohibited or site case precedence.
That's all you have to do. If you take to time to do it you will learn not only about the Civil Rights Law but also about interstate commerce law.
You'll be surprised at what you find and where, when, and how it might actually be legal. They are a number of tactics that one can employ to "legally" discriminate. That's why you need to cite the law so you can see the loopholes.
Quote from RCG Trader:
What Rand, and some others seem to miss is that, there is not a single piece of legislation( particularly when it comes to ethnics), that has not needed to be enforced at the point of a bayonet, either fiscal or actual.
Government HAD to step in because most of the people either lacked the will or the courage to change for the better, as well as more than a few who didn't think that civil rights was a better thing.
There are still people today, with a sitting African-American president who are talking about people without property being disenfranchised.
The descendants of the Confederacy just never got over that loss. Understandable considering they were winning most of the time, but the facts are that they lost, and the South will not rise again.
Yet again, lets trot this elephant in the room out. People are not noticing it. Worse, some believe that the nature of humanity has changed in the last 50 years.
Were it not for government bayonets, most of what we see today would not be possible in terms of tolerance.
When the views are inhumane, not serving humanity (which does include black people) then it applies to the inhumane actions of everyone equally, even communists...or even libertarians.
The actions matter, law governs behaviors, not a political affiliation.
A doctor can hate black people, but the ethical responsibility is to treat them is there...and if the doctor refuses on the basis of color...his license to practice should be revoked.
The actions matter, law governs behaviors, not a political affiliation.
A doctor can hate black people, but the ethical responsibility is to treat them is there...and if the doctor refuses on the basis of color...his license to practice should be revoked.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
So a doctor's political views are grounds for forcibly prohibiting him from working? Like in the USSR or 1984? Does that apply to doctors who are communists too?
"You'll be surprised at what you find and where, when, and how it might actually be legal."
Might actually?
Funny...
Go ahead, open a business to the public, then deny blacks the right to be served...see what happens.
The court will (and has) decided what will actually happen when there is discrimination on the basis of race...
Roll the dice...take your chances on what "might actually" take place in a courtroom...
Might actually?
Funny...
Go ahead, open a business to the public, then deny blacks the right to be served...see what happens.
The court will (and has) decided what will actually happen when there is discrimination on the basis of race...
Roll the dice...take your chances on what "might actually" take place in a courtroom...
Quote from PatternRec:
Now, now.
Simply site where in the Civil Rights Act where your example of a music teacher scenario is prohibited or site case precedence.
That's all you have to do. If you take to time to do it you will learn not only about the Civil Rights Law but also about interstate commerce law.
You'll be surprised at what you find and where, when, and how it might actually be legal. They are a number of tactics that one can employ to "legally" discriminate. That's why you need to cite the law so you can see the loopholes.
Simply continue to demand something you are not going to get...see how that works out...
I already know how it works out...you will huff and puff and blow the house down...
I already know how it works out...you will huff and puff and blow the house down...
Quote from PatternRec:
Now, now.
Simply site where in the Civil Rights Act where your example of a music teacher scenario is prohibited or site case precedence.
That's all you have to do. If you take to time to do it you will learn not only about the Civil Rights Law but also about interstate commerce law.
You'll be surprised at what you find and where, when, and how it might actually be legal. They are a number of tactics that one can employ to "legally" discriminate. That's why you need to cite the law so you can see the loopholes.