Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:23 pmA hotel, store or other venue is private property is it not? Are you saying it shouldn’t apply go anywhere that’s not public?
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding
Page 27 of 44
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:23 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:17 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:20 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:02 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:05 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:10 pmSan Lumen wrote:You can’t be serious. If a store or hotel had a policy of white heterosexuals only you’d think that’s their right?
It actually wasn't that long ago that there were TV commercials that advertised Sandals holiday resorts as being for "mixed-sex couples only". I remember seeing them on TV, and that text always appeared at the bottom. It eventually stopped of course, but it went on for a long time before it did.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:24 pmWhy should they have that right? African Americans should have just left the south entirely? Lgbt people should have just accepted they were unequal depending on where they lived?
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:25 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:26 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:26 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:27 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:29 pmPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:35 pmA state is not public property. By your logic they should have all just left and LGBT people in certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:38 pmSan Lumen wrote:La xinga wrote:It does. To the African American part, the part worth quoting.
A state is not public property. By your logic they should have all just left and LGBT people in Missouri certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights
Biggest straw man ever? I don't even think this is a strawman, like what?
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:41 pmLa xinga wrote:San Lumen wrote:A state is not public property. By your logic they should have all just left and LGBT people in Missouri certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights
Biggest straw man ever? I don't even think this is a strawman, like what?
It’s not a straw man it’s your logic
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:44 pmDude, I support that business owners should have the right to refuse request if they don't want.
You took that and somehow got:
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:15 pmLa xinga wrote:San Lumen wrote:It’s not a straw man it’s your logic
Dude, I support that business owners should have the right to refuse request if they don't want.
You took that and somehow got:San Lumen wrote:they should have all just left and LGBT people in certain states should have just accepted they’d never have equal rights because as a business owner muh rights
Therefore there ought to be a right to discriminate and the civil rights should be repealed
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:16 pmN-no? There's a difference between private property and right to discriminate, which doesn't exist.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:26 pmWhat is the difference? Your arguing for a right to discriminate just using different words. By your logic the civil rights act should not have been passed
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:29 pmYou are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.
They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.
Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:40 pmWell TBF for example the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 only applied to governmental entities.
Of the 6 titles in the 1964 act only one, Title II covers private entities, banning some private entities from discrimination.
So you could pass civil rights laws only restricting governments and you could only repeal article II of the 1964 act leaving the rest intact. Private and governmental discrimination are different things.
That being said I do think some anti discrimination laws should apply to many private entities (and outlined a legal test for this).
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:42 pmJedi Council wrote:La xinga wrote:No. The south is public property.
You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.
They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.
Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.
Tbf, at least some of that discrimination only existed because it was mandated by state government, which does go against the spirit of the argument that individuals should be allowed to choose whom they allow on their private property. The rest of them, well, they had the good fortune of the powers that be supporting their given bigotry, I guess.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:45 amDouble
?There is no right to discriminate on public property, because it's not your property.
Your residence, however, or business, is your private property. You should have the right to do what you want to do with it.
Jedi Council wrote:La xinga wrote:No. The south is public property.
You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.
They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.
Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.
Uhuh I'm sure I'm the one willfully misinterpreting the other ones point. Uhuh.
And they wouldn't. A lot of neighborhoods are today not by law but simply the way they are segregated. Example, Harlem in NY, Bronzeville in Chicago, View Park-Windsor Hills in LA, so they could set up their own restaurants and have it segregated or not.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:50 amLa xinga wrote:San Lumen wrote:What is the difference? Your arguing for a right to discriminate just using different words. By your logic the civil rights act should not have been passed
Double
There is no right to discriminate on public property, because it's not your property.
Your residence, however, or business, is your private property. You should have the right to do what you want to do with it.Jedi Council wrote:You are willfully misinterpreting Lumens point.
They are saying that given the amount of discrimination in the South on private property (segregated restaraunts for example), that black people would have to move North to expect equal service.
Being pedantic and working only by this nebulous concept of "the South" is silly.
Uhuh I'm sure I'm the one willfully misinterpreting the other ones point. Uhuh.
And they wouldn't. A lot of neighborhoods are today not by law but simply the way they are segregated. Example, Harlem in NY, Bronzeville in Chicago, View Park-Windsor Hills in LA, so they could set up their own restaurants and have it segregated or not.
Therefore we ought to get rid of the civil rights act and all anti discrimination laws.
If a gay couple goes to a hotel they should hide their relationship because the hotel might refuse them service
No they could not have it segregated
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:52 amSan Lumen wrote:La xinga wrote: Double
There is no right to discriminate on public property, because it's not your property.
Your residence, however, or business, is your private property. You should have the right to do what you want to do with it.
Uhuh I'm sure I'm the one willfully misinterpreting the other ones point. Uhuh.
And they wouldn't. A lot of neighborhoods are today not by law but simply the way they are segregated. Example, Harlem in NY, Bronzeville in Chicago, View Park-Windsor Hills in LA, so they could set up their own restaurants and have it segregated or not.
Therefore we ought to get rid of the civil rights act and all anti discrimination laws.
And why is that? I cannot see where you jump from here to there.
If a gay couple goes to a hotel they should hide their relationship because the hotel might refuse them service
I don't think all the hotels in the area will just refuse them, and if they will I'm not sure what they're doing there.
And if they really want, they could.
No they could not have it segregated
And why not?