While wearing a #FreeBeiber t-shirt.
Advertisement
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:19 pm
by Respubliko de Libereco » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:19 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Respubliko de Libereco wrote:It is a relevant distinction, because someone could argue that it does exist as a moral right, whereas they couldn't argue that it exists as a legal right. If you're going to just say "that right does not exist, legal or otherwise", be prepared to defend that statement with something other than the law.
As soon as I'm given a compelling reason to even to begin to entertain that right, but until such a time (which has not arrived), I can rest on the notion that this is a legally settled issue, that the discussion on the existence of this right has been decided properly.
by Nightkill the Emperor » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:19 pm
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.
by Lincolnocracy » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:20 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Lincolnocracy wrote:
This is a compelling description, and I appreciate the insight that it represents; this is a perspective that I may not have heard otherwise.
Unfortunately, I would still have to insist that this particular case is a single restaurant, and is neither writ large nor poised to be writ large.
Well, sure. In this particular case, it is a single restaurant. However, if these protections are not consistently enforced, then they will be ignored by others as well. I wish that I could say otherwise, that humanity has learned its lesson, but I really don't think so. This guy has managed to fly under the radar for decades. Now that he's getting some publicity, he may have to change his ways, or face legal action. If it goes unanswered by the law, then we run a huge risk of a creeping effect where other restaurants start indulging in the same sort of discrimination, and we end up back where we started decades ago.
Cannot think of a name wrote:Lincolnocracy wrote:
Is your claim that things now are as bad as they were in the 20th century, or that without the policing of restaurants, we would swiftly return to a state as bad as the 20th century?
My argument is that this restaurant exists in defiance of the insistence that it would not. Is that in dispute? Are you arguing that this restaurant doesn't exist?
Mavorpen wrote:Lincolnocracy wrote:Additionally, when it comes to restaurants, that's part of my point: Jim Crow isn't going to return soon, not even if some restaurants are racist. Ergo, the Civil Rights era imagery is somewhat inappropriate.
Fantastic! You've attacked imagery that is nonexistent and not a single person has presented. Would you like a cookie?
Or, would you prefer to actually debate points people have ACTUALLY made?
by Nightkill the Emperor » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:23 pm
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:The article in the OP reads quite like a blog.
Not saying it isn't factually accurate, but it's more bloggy than most actual blogs I've read. Is the caps lock and italics that necessary in a news publication?
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:23 pm
Lincolnocracy wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree vis-a-vis imagery. Irrespective, which specific points would you like me to address?
by Lerodan Chinamerica » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:27 pm
by The greater Vakolicci Haven » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:27 pm
by Lerodan Chinamerica » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:29 pm
The greater Vakolicci Haven wrote:I'm not really understanding this.
Restaurant only wants to allow certain types of people (namely physically able, white, rich, straight people) in, a privately owned restaurant, btw.
In my opinion (that is, the opinion of a blind bisexual pagan), that law stopping him doing that is crazy. It's his job to say who walks through his door, not the governments.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:30 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:The greater Vakolicci Haven wrote:I'm not really understanding this.
Restaurant only wants to allow certain types of people (namely physically able, white, rich, straight people) in, a privately owned restaurant, btw.
In my opinion (that is, the opinion of a blind bisexual pagan), that law stopping him doing that is crazy. It's his job to say who walks through his door, not the governments.
Inb4 "BUT MUH REGULATION!!!!"
by Lincolnocracy » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:32 pm
Mavorpen wrote:Lincolnocracy wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree vis-a-vis imagery. Irrespective, which specific points would you like me to address?
Wait, why? Not a single person has made the claim that Jim Crow would come back if the Civil Rights Act disappeared.
Though, it isn't preposterous to claim that if the citizens of the country voted for people who actually would do such a thing, Jim Crow returning is a possibility. It certainly is reasonable to assume that a population who allows discrimination against racial minorities would also allow laws that explicitly do so.
by Bezombia » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:32 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.
Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:32 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.
Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.
by Zarodia » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:33 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:I am not sure there is sufficient gunpowder around to cannon-launch enough of them to Manhattan from their parents' basements.
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:34 pm
Lincolnocracy wrote:
Lots of people have invoked a slippery slope.
Lincolnocracy wrote:Perhaps. Or parts of it could be amended because it isn't needed anymore.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:35 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.
Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.
by Lincolnocracy » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:37 pm
by Lerodan Chinamerica » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:39 pm
Bezombia wrote:Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.
Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.
No it isn't. There's nothing in the first amendment that says "y'all can go fuck over minorities if ya' want".
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.
Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.
No, it isn't.
He has the right to speak out against black people all he wants.
He has no inherent right under the Constitution to not provide them with the basic services he is willing to provide others if he is only refusing said service based upon race.
The First Amendment wrote: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.
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:41 pm
Lincolnocracy wrote:1. If it isn't a slippery slope, then you agree with me; Jim Crow isn't returning. There's no problem.
Lincolnocracy wrote:2. So, what bad things would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How slippery is your slope?
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:42 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others.
by Lincolnocracy » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:44 pm
Mavorpen wrote:Lincolnocracy wrote:1. If it isn't a slippery slope, then you agree with me; Jim Crow isn't returning. There's no problem.
Did you read my post? Jim Crow returning after the CRA of 1964 being repealed isn't a slippery slope. I already explained that if a society's population is racist enough to repeal the law, then there's plenty reason to assume that there is a possibility of law similar to Jim Crow returning.Lincolnocracy wrote:2. So, what bad things would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How slippery is your slope?
This has nothing to do with my post.
by Bezombia » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:44 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Bezombia wrote:
No it isn't. There's nothing in the first amendment that says "y'all can go fuck over minorities if ya' want".Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
No, it isn't.
He has the right to speak out against black people all he wants.
He has no inherent right under the Constitution to not provide them with the basic services he is willing to provide others if he is only refusing said service based upon race.The First Amendment wrote: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.
That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others. Utilising coercion against a potential customer is fucking them over; refusing a service out of many to them is not. It's an assholean thing to do, but it's not like the owner's putting a gun to their head.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Lerodan Chinamerica » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:46 pm
Bezombia wrote:Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:
That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others. Utilising coercion against a potential customer is fucking them over; refusing a service out of many to them is not. It's an assholean thing to do, but it's not like the owner's putting a gun to their head.
Freedom of associating means that you can join a political activist party, not that you can hold a "Whites Only" night club.
Wikipedia wrote:Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.
by Bezombia » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:47 pm
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Bezombia wrote:
Freedom of associating means that you can join a political activist party, not that you can hold a "Whites Only" night club.Wikipedia wrote:Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Fordorsia wrote:mfw Beano is my dad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSWiMoO8zNE
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
by Mavorpen » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:48 pm
Lincolnocracy wrote:Mavorpen wrote:Did you read my post? Jim Crow returning after the CRA of 1964 being repealed isn't a slippery slope. I already explained that if a society's population is racist enough to repeal the law, then there's plenty reason to assume that there is a possibility of law similar to Jim Crow returning.
This has nothing to do with my post.
1. No comment on "1." beyond the emboldening and italicizing of your statement.
Lincolnocracy wrote:2. You're claiming that the law is still needed, why is it still needed? What would happen otherwise?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Burnt Calculators, Cerula, El Lazaro, Elejamie, Hidrandia, Hurdergaryp, Oceasia, Port Carverton, Reantreet, Safiloa, Shidei, Tungstan, Vassenor, Zurkerx
Advertisement