[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Indiana religion law is Jim Crow of our time
Source: Cincinnati.com
URL Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opi ... on-law-jim-crow-time/70617014/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Ryan Messer
Post Date: 2015-03-29 04:44:12 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 28873
Comments: 127

The arguments for Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguments are strikingly similar to the arguments for racial discrimination some 50 years ago. Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love.

Let’s tell it like it is: The so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Jim Crow legislation of our time. Today, African-Americans are protected from discrimination of this kind – and that’s exactly how it should be in the Land of the Free. Alas, LGBT people enjoy no such protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but at least always had trusted their home state legislatures and governors not to turn on them.

I take this personally because, as of Thursday, my family and I are not protected from discrimination when we visit family and friends in the state of my birth. This is real and wrong and grieves me deeply.

The passage of this discriminatory legislation brings back painful memories in Cincinnati of a charter amendment, commonly known as Article XII, that prohibited City Council from passing any ordinance that would have granted LGBT people equal protection under the law. It was a sorry moment in our city’s history – one in which an entire class of people was singled out for non-protection.

The city’s image was damaged throughout the country, and the economic impact was significant, with conventions being canceled and prestigious companies choosing not to do business in our city. I was a resident of Cincinnati at the time, and the passage of the charter amendment created a cloud over the city that ultimately contributed to my decision to leave. I wasn’t alone. Many people I knew moved to cities that they viewed as more welcoming: Chicago, Atlanta, San Diego. I moved to New York.

Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could. Cincinnati now is seen as one of those welcoming cities – one dramatically different from what it was. Did we fall into the dream that the rest of American had taken that journey with us? If so, we’ve had a rude awakening.

Now I have to question where in Indiana my family can go without discrimination. Can we visit the Indianapolis Children’s Museum? Will a hotel turn us away? Would we be allowed to buy a cupcake at a bakery? If you can, put yourself in our shoes for a moment you can see how unsettling and infuriating this situation is.

Maybe the good people of Indiana will come back to their senses as the good people of Cincinnati did some years ago. While they’re pondering what they’ve done, we Cincinnatians should contact the convention organizers who have announced they will pull their meetings out of Indiana and let them know that they are heartily welcome in the Queen City.

We should work with the business leaders who have decided not to expand in Indiana and let them know that they are very welcome to locate in our Ohio and Kentucky counties. And we certainly should let all the talented Hoosiers who happen to be LGBT know that they are welcome to live, work, love and play here.

Indiana may have lost its sense of justice and good sense for a while but the rest of us understand the human and business cases for diversity and inclusion. Let’s cash in on the progress we’ve made in Cincinnati and elevate our status as a city that welcomes diversity of all kinds and declines to discriminate against any of our citizens.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

are protected from discrimination of this kind – and that’s exactly how it should be in the Land of the Free

LOL, Incredible hypocrisy. Forced political correctness, is not freedom.

Adding coercive government goons just makes a bad situation, even worse. The right to be an ahole, is cherished American civil right.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-03-29   5:09:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Willie Green (#0)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) of 1993 is a federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by then Congressman Chuck Schumer in the House ,and Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate ,and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate .It was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

It was ruled constitutional at the Federal level ;but SCOTUS ruled it did not apply at the state level . That is why some states have taken the initiative to pass their own laws.

Specific to the RFRA says that government can't deny free exercise of religion unless there is a compelling government interest ,and it finds the least burdensome way to deny it. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability".

Like the Federal law and some state laws that have already passed ; the law would have courts apply the standard of “strict scrutiny” when free exercise claims are made, meaning that when someone asks for a religious exemption from a law the government must demonstrate that it has a “compelling interest” in denying that claim, and that it has advanced that interest by the “least restrictive means.” The 3 tests applied are : -the religious belief has to be sincerely held, and not just a pose to make a point.

-the state interest in overriding the religious belief has to be compelling.

- the action taken by the state has to be the least intrusive that still satisfies the compelling state interest.

As an example ;these tests were applied in the Hobby Lobby case involving Obamacare and contraceptives ,and the result was a win for Hobby Lobby.

Now 19 states already have similar laws to what Governor Pence has signed . Some of them are very "blue " states (Illinois ,Connecticut ,Rhode Island ). The question is ,why wasn't the passage of laws in those state subject to the same stink that is going on in Indiana ? Could it be that Pence is a potential Presidential candidate ?

Another 11 states have judicial precedents that constitute a RFRA policy in their courts. RFRA cases have gone favorable to those laws because they don’t protect ad-hoc discrimination on any basis.

No it is not Jim Crow at all . Jim Crow laws compelled businesses to discriminate . Indiana's law like the other 19 laws passed at the state level does not permit discrimination at all ,but would not burden an individual or a business to partake in any way in a religious ceremony they find objectionable . In other words ,a Christian bakery could not deny service because someone was gay. However ,if they did not want to be associated or participate in a gay "marriage" ,they would not be compelled to provide the "wedding " cake.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-03-29   7:18:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: tomder55 (#2)

Indiana's law like the other 19 laws passed at the state level does not permit discrimination at all ,but would not burden an individual or a business to partake in any way in a religious ceremony they find objectionable . In other words ,a Christian bakery could not deny service because someone was gay. However ,if they did not want to be associated or participate in a gay "marriage" ,they would not be compelled to provide the "wedding " cake.

That bears repeating, tomder. Long live the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://www.tedcruz.org

out damned spot  posted on  2015-03-29   7:59:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tomder55, out damned spot (#2)

In other words ,a Christian bakery could not deny service because someone was gay. However ,if they did not want to be associated or participate in a gay "marriage" ,they would not be compelled to provide the "wedding " cake.

Nor could it be compelled to provide a Jewish wedding cake, nor an African-American wedding cake...
Nor would a so-called "Christian" restaurant/banquet hall be compelled to provide facilities for Jewish or African-American weddings either...
And since the Pope isn't really a true, "born again" Christian, I suppose it would be OK to refuse service to Catholics as well...

Mike Pence is the David Duke of Indiana.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   8:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Willie Green (#4)

African-American weddings

not the same at all. It would be vaguely analogous if the black couple were to ask a white baker for a cake that said 'death to white skin devils'. But either way ,that doesn't measure up to a religious test. Besides the bakers are not refusing to serve gays ;just to participate or be associated with the ceremony they find objectionable .

A better example would be if a Jewish baker were asked to make an anti-Semitic saying on the cake ,or perhaps Swastika armbands on the figurines on the cake ..or if a pro-abortion baker were asked by someone to make a cake that said 'Life begins at Birth '. Could the bakers in these cases be forced to serve those clients ?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-03-29   9:34:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Willie Green (#0)

"Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love."

I agree. Let's not screw around. Let's settle this once and for all.

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   9:59:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Willie Green (#0)

"Article XII, that prohibited City Council from passing any ordinance that would have granted LGBT people equal protection under the law."

"Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII"

Uh-huh. And then what did they do? They passed a gay hate-crime law, meaning gays don't get equal protection under the law -- they get special protection under the law.

But, of course, that's OK.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   10:07:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#4)

Mike Pence is the David Duke of Indiana.

Congratulations, Willie. Rarely do we see this kind of political 180 degree turn-around at any forum. When exactly had you made the decision to become a member of GLAAD, the Black Panther Party, and SPLC??

(Tell the Mother Ship to return the real Willie Green!)

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   10:19:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: hondo68 (#1)

Incredible hypocrisy. Forced political correctness, is not freedom.

Adding coercive government goons just makes a bad situation, even worse.

Amen! The Left calls slavery "freedom." And gubmint coercion "tolerance."

Yahoo "News" has been obsessed with hysterically spamming it's readers with practically nothing but GAY! GAY! GAY!! 24/7. Fascist robotic Gay-Stapo trolls have used the interwebs to create a viral backlash against....FREEDOM.Can't make this up.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   10:26:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: tomder55 (#2)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) of 1993 is a federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by then Congressman Chuck Schumer in the House ,and Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate ,and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate .It was signed into law by Bill Clinton....

Thanks for the (ironic) historical backdrop, Tom.

Now 19 states already have similar laws to what Governor Pence has signed.

And are the homo-fascists now going to boycott those states as well??

Some of them are very "blue " states (Illinois ,Connecticut ,Rhode Island ). The question is ,why wasn't the passage of laws in those state subject to the same stink that is going on in Indiana ? Could it be that Pence is a potential Presidential candidate?

Hmmmm....

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   10:30:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Willie Green (#0)

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?

Then shut up.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   10:49:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Willie Green (#0)

I take this personally because, as of Thursday, my family and I are not protected from discrimination when we visit family and friends in the state of my birth. This is real and wrong and grieves me deeply.

This faggot should take a gun to his head. Then he wont be miserable. And I won't have to read about some faggot whining about people having rights to not associate with dirty faggots.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   10:50:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)

Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?

As long as you actually ate it, sure, why not?

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   10:52:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Willie Green (#0)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Religious Freedom Bump Silly Willie.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   10:52:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Willie Green (#13)

Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me? As long as you actually ate it, sure, why not?

So someone from the KKK should be allowed to force a black baker to bake a cake that says "Put The Niggers In Chains"

If you believe that you are a moron.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   10:54:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

NEW Testament bump. (The one that is actually Christian, in case you forgot)

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   11:00:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

misterwhite ,Rand Paul took it on the chin for daring to point out that the Civil Rights laws banned institutional discrimination ....but that laws trampling on freedom of association are unconstitutional ;commerce clause or otherwise.

https://youtu.be/MWBDWU7qES8

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-03-29   11:02:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Willie Green (#16)

NEW Testament bump. (The one that is actually Christian, in case you forgot)

I know that. But what is your point?

Everyone isn't a christian. Some people practice Judaism.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:03:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#15)

So someone from the KKK should be allowed to force a black baker to bake a cake that says "Put The Niggers In Chains"

I don't think you'd have to force him...
as long as the Klansman actually ate the cake, I'm sure there'd be plenty of black bakers who would volunteer to bake it for him.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   11:07:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Willie Green (#19)

I don't think you'd have to force him... as long as the Klansman actually ate the cake, I'm sure there'd be plenty of black bakers who would volunteer to bake it for him.

That is fine if one wanted to back such a cake. But one should never be forced to.

Just like the decent folks who are trying to be forced to bake cakes for Sodomites.

By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:10:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Some people practice Judaism.

Not if they're in the KKK.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   11:10:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Willie Green (#21)

Some people practice Judaism.

Not if they're in the KKK.

You're confusing my examples. Or I didn't write clearly enough.

They are different examples.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:11:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)

By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.

That seems like a good policy. Meguro seemed to be a big part of why LP was a cess pool of flame wars, and LP became a forum for insulting people, while LF is a forum for discussing ideas. Based upon the empirical results the no fag policy creates a more civil atmosphere.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:19:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Byelstin (#21)

Some people practice Judaism.

Not if they're in the KKK.

This sounds like a request for the boys in purple robes!

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:21:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nativist nationalist (#23)

LF is a forum for discussing ideas

I like that idea.

But truthfully I insult people sometimes.

Less lately.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:22:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: tomder55 (#17)

"misterwhite ,Rand Paul took it on the chin for daring to point out that the Civil Rights laws banned institutional discrimination ....but that laws trampling on freedom of association are unconstitutional ;commerce clause or otherwise."

If the federal government wants to pass Civil Rights legislation, fine. Those laws would only apply to the the federal government.

If any state wants to pass Civil Rights legislation, fine. Those laws would only apply to that particular state government.

But, in my opinion, there is no way any Civil Rights legislation should apply to individuals or private sector corporations. Let the individual (or business) succeed or fail on their decisions.

Rand Paul took it on the chin for for his flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act. In 2010, he said the law gave the federal government too much power in telling business owners what they could and could not do. In May 2012, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for the bill in 1964 if he had the chance.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   11:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)

But truthfully I insult people sometimes.

Less lately.

Every once in a while an idea would get discussed on LP, but it was the exception to the rule. There is a huge difference between what LF is and what LP had become. I recall that the guys who would things down over there mentioned that he had some friends check out LP, and that they were appalled by what they saw.

I had a friend who would look at LP on his own, he did not post, and Meguro was the one in his mind that seem to make the place degenerate. I should have him check out LF and see what he thinks. Without Meguro this is a far more civil atmosphere, Meguro seemed to bring out the worst in people, in addition to its own degeneracy.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:35:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nativist nationalist (#23)

"Based upon the empirical results the no fag policy creates a more civil atmosphere."

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Boring as hell, but really great.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   11:36:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nativist nationalist (#27)

"and what LP had become."

There was nothing wrong with LP that a good moderator couldn't have fixed. The inmates took over the asylum.

Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   11:41:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite (#28)

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Again, based upon the empirical results. If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value. The ones who turned LP into a cess pool could be identified not by race or religion, but by their deviant lifestyles.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:43:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. ---

-- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

True enough, refusing a class of people service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce, but it has a lot to do with having an open to the public restaurant refuse to serve a specific class of people for specious and biased reasons. -- Reasons that violate our constitutional principles.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   12:02:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: misterwhite (#29)

Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.

That it was. Goldi was of the Hebrew faith; I think the advice Jethro gave to his son-in-law Moses would have served LP very well. If Meguro were here it would have ended up being banned anyway, so Stone's "no fags" rule or Devil Anse would have led to the same point anyway

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   12:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite (#29)

There was nothing wrong with LP that a good moderator couldn't have fixed. The inmates took over the asylum.

Translation:--- Goldie allowed libertarians to post opinions that countered the majority rule agitprop posted by misterwhite and his sycophants.

Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.

Translation:--- The majority rule group couldn't gain control, and misterwhite is still in a snit about it..

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   12:19:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: tpaine (#31)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. ---

-- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias.

The tenets of my faith *is" personal, and NOT superseded by a tyrannical gubmint that ignores MY civil rights.

And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me. It sounds...fascist. Are you now advocating this gubmint has the constitutional right to license our very defecation?? (after all, it IS "business," is it not, because a fee is paid to a sewage utility which "serves the public," correct? )

Moreover, isn't "licensing" and over-regulation (as is proposed in this case) just another way to blackmail, extort, and impose morality upon individuals and businesses that violate the tenets of our faith?

So in your opinion, you're advocating the fascist enforcement Christian bakery should be compelled to bake a pornographic-topped cake? A Jewish bakery a Swastika-top cake?

Nice support of this insanity.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone, Willie Green, tpaine (#11)

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?

WELL, gentlemen??

These hypocritical crusading "Rights!!" libertarian jihadists may as well be demanding bakers be compelled to scrawl on a cake, "THE BAKER OF THIS CAKE IS A %$#!@ CHRISTIAN HOMOPHOBE AND RACIST! %$#! YOU!!"

As per the the spirit USCON and Bill of Right, right?

Pffft.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#28)

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Boring as hell, but really great.

There is no reason why Stone shouldn't have the same rights to cater to whom he wants to post, for the same reasons you support a business owner to not have to cater to a certain type of people.

Meguro is a pickle smooching freak of nature.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-29   12:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#27)

I had a friend who would look at LP on his own, he did not post, and Meguro was the one in his mind that seem to make the place degenerate. I should have him check out LF and see what he thinks.

Without Meguro this is a far more civil atmosphere, Meguro seemed to bring out the worst in people, in addition to its own degeneracy.

A agree with your observations.

Meguro was a homofascist and degenerate troll, period. His "job" was exactly to sabotage LP. Speaking of "sabotage"...

I also used to suggest that friends check out LP...only to be aghast at the infamous "canary-in-the-coalmine" yukon turning it into a giant dung-flinging baboon cage. That is why it never grew, and LP could not be recommended.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:49:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: misterwhite, nativist nationalist (#28)

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Boring as hell, but really great.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or disingenuous....

ALL of the above demos could well be the most conservative poster at any of these forums. Homos, NOT so much.

There is a huge difference between trolls whose prime objective is advancing subversiveness and anarchy and crapping all over the forum in order to discredit it. Intellectually honest discourse from different perspectives.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:56:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: GrandIsland (#36)

"There is no reason why Stone shouldn't have the same rights to cater to whom he wants to post"

Just offering some helpful suggestions.

Meguro was disruptive because he/she was allowed to be disruptive, turning every thread into a debate about homosexuality. He/she could have been controlled, but wasn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   12:58:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Liberator (#35)

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?

CORRECTION: That sentence should read.

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for them.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   12:59:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Liberator, Tpaine (#35)

Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   13:01:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Liberator (#34)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. --- -- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias.

Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me. It sounds...fascist.

Calm yourself. I'm against most types of business licensing, but licensing is constitutional, so I accept it as a necessary evil.

Are you now advocating this gubmint has the constitutional right to license our very defecation?? (after all, it IS "business," is it not, because a fee is paid to a sewage utility which "serves the public," correct? ) --- Moreover, isn't "licensing" and over-regulation (as is proposed in this case) just another way to blackmail, extort, and impose morality upon individuals and businesses that violate the tenets of our faith?

Yep, we agree that morality should be self imposed.

So in your opinion, you're advocating the fascist enforcement Christian bakery should be compelled to bake a pornographic-topped cake? A Jewish bakery a Swastika-top cake?

No, In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded.

Nice support of this insanity.

Yep, the whole issue is insane all right, but it ain't me that's going crazy about it...

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   13:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: A K A Stone (#41) (Edited)

Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

Seems to me the transhumanist/postgenderist activists in this case have assumed dominion over the baker and forced the baker's craftsmanship to conform with and propagate their own, UN-natural, opinions - opinions with which the baker does not agree. I think forcing the baker to bake a cake to propagate opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.

VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   13:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#41)

Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded.

Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   13:18:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Willie Green (#0)

Should I be able to walk into the gift shop at the local natural history museum's planetarium and demand they sell me a model of the Universe with the Earth at its center?

Human reproductive sexuality, Male and Female, was selected for by billions of years of evolution.

Deal with it.

VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   13:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: A K A Stone (#20)

By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.

Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh?

Too bad you don't believe in Darwin, dude. I can assure both you AND meguro that those of us who are truly heterosexual NEVER experience homosexual fantasies. The mere thought is naturally repugnant, and we don't need Holy Scripture to tell us that.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   13:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Willie Green (#46) (Edited)

The mere thought is naturally repugnant

Yep, as naturally repugnant as the odor of rotten food.

But the tranhumanist/postgenderists have learned from past experience that sort of natural common sense can be desensitized.

It's not surprising such cancerous, cultural, self-destructiveness reflects the #1 objective on the NWO todo list...

VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   14:12:56 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Liberator (#34)

"And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me."

It's not. Hell, it's not even conservative.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   17:53:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#41)

"Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also?"

I agree with Ayn Rand on this one: "In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so only by voluntary agreement."

Period.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   18:00:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: tpaine (#44)

In my opinion, a licensed wedding

Why should you need a license to bake cakes?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   18:10:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Willie Green (#46)

Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh?

Nah. I just thought he was an asshole to be honest.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   18:11:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: tomder55, Willie Green (#2)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) of 1993 is a federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by then Congressman Chuck Schumer in the House ,and Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate ,and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate .It was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf

107 STAT. 1488 PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16,1993

Public Law 103-141 
103d Congress

An Act

To protect the free exercise of religion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act of 1993".

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.

       (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
            (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise 
       of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in 
       the First Amendment to the Constitution;
            (2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious 
       exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious 
       exercise;
            (3) governments should not substantially burden religious 
       exercise without compelling justification;
            (4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) 
       the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that 
       the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed 
       by laws neutral toward religion; and
            (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal 
       court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances 
       between religious liberty and competing prior governmental 
       interests.
       (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
            (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in 
       Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. 
       Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application 
       in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially 
       burdened; and
            (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious 
       exercise is substantially burdened by government.

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

       (a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden 
a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from 
a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection 
(b).
       (b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a per-
son's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application 
of the burden to the person—
            (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
            (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compel­
ling governmental interest.
       (c) Judicial Relief.—A person whose religious exercise has 
been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation 
as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate 
relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense 
under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing 
under article III of the Constitution.

SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.

       (a) Judicial Proceedings.—Section 722 of the Revised Stat­
utes (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Religious Free­
dom Restoration Act of 1993 " before "or title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964".
       (b) Administrative Proceedings.—Section 504(b)(l)(C) of title 
5, United States Code, is amended—
            (1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii);
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii) 
and inserting ", and"; and
            (3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act of 1993;" after clause (iii).

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act—
            (1) the term "government" includes a branch, department, 
agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting 
under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivi­
sion of a State;
            (2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and 
possession of the United States;
            (3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of 
going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
            (4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of 
religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal and State 
law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or 
otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of 
this Act.
       (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law adopted 
after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act 
unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference 
to this Act.
       (c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this Act shall 
be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious 
belief.

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.

     Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, 
or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibit­
ing laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in 
this section as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government 
funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under 
the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this 
Act. As used in this section, the term "granting", used with respect 
to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include 
the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

Approved November 16, 1993.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   19:02:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: nativist nationalist, Murron (#30) (Edited)

If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value

Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is. She (Rebel Gal) posted a photo of herself years ago. It makes no difference, but she needs to be pinged anyway. So...

((((( PING )))))


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-03-29   19:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: A K A Stone (#14)

Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   19:57:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#50)

Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded.

Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights.

Why should you need a license to bake cakes?

Ask the majority rule devotees, like misterwhite. -- They usually claim that food preparers, restaurants, etc -- must be licensed to protect the public's health.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   20:00:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#54) (Edited)

Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

First Regular Session 119th General Assembly (2015)

PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.

Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.

Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2014 Regular Session and 2014 Second Regular Technical Session of the General Assembly.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:

(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws


2

respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.

(c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:

(1) State government.

(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).

(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:

(1) An individual.

(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.

(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that:

(A) may sue and be sued; and

(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:

(i) an individual; or

(ii) the individuals;

who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,


3

even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:

(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and

(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;

the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity.

(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following:

(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.

(2) Compensatory damages.

(c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter. Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of


4

action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   20:28:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: nolu chan (#56)

Where's the Jim Crow claim?

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   20:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#56)

Before anyone boycotts riding trains through Indiana below link is a better explanation of the law.

Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom- restoration-act- explained_900641.html

This is leftist hysteria from not knowing history.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   20:55:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: misterwhite, Willie Green (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-ii/section-2000a/

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS - 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2012)

§2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

(a) Equal access

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments

Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined

The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Support by State action

Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) Private establishments

The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title II, §201, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 243.)

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   21:00:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: redleghunter (#57)

Where's the Jim Crow claim?

I think the claim is that Section 7 is expansive in its definition of person.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   21:02:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: misterwhite (#6)

I agree, a restaurant has the absolute right to not serve blacks. It also has the absolute right to not serve anyone. It should be the same for every business, but not for the government. Take away the right to refuse to serve a minority and you effectively nationalize everyones business.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-03-29   21:02:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: hondo68 (#53)

Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is.

native nationalist wears a pillow case on his head in addition to his white diaper.

I didn't realize it until I started reading this thread.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-03-30   0:46:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: jeremiad (#61)

"I agree, a restaurant has the absolute right to not serve blacks."

Or whites. If I walk into a black bar in a black neighborhood, the owner has every right not to serve me and to ask me to leave.

Although he doesn't have to give a reason for doing that, I can think of a half-dozen good ones off the top of my head.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   9:51:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: nolu chan (#59)

I'm aware of the law.

"Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

I'm saying I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think it interferes with interstate commerce. If I want kosher food, can I demand that all businesses serve it? Or does the free market respond by opening kosher businesses?

It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   10:00:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Fred Mertz (#62)

You need to read through the thread Bill, I'm not the one who suggested banning blacks. I am the one who opposed that idea. I'd say your reading comprehension sucks, you'd better read the thread again William.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-30   10:36:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#58)

Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.

The RFRA of Illinois was one of the few votes the emperor cast a vote for , instead of voting present .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-03-30   12:27:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: tomder55 (#66)

Interesting.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-30   14:08:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: misterwhite (#64)

"Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

I'm saying I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think it interferes with interstate commerce. If I want kosher food, can I demand that all businesses serve it? Or does the free market respond by opening kosher businesses?

It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.

You use the term interferes with interstate commerce. The law uses the term affects interstate commerce. There is very long standing precedent that someting that affects interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, triggers commerce clause jurisdiction. The Court's definition of affects is ridiculously broad. Activity that "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect,'" triggers the interstate commerce clause jurisdiction.

Any national debate would need to focus on a constitutional amendment to force a reversal of that. A law contrary to the Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, would be held unconstitutional. Then you would practically need a constitutional convention to get that done because Congress just ain't ever gonna go there, at least not in the foreseeable future.

A national discussion of discrimination law could address the problem and legislation could act upon it. Legislation cannot act to change SCOTUS interpretations of the constitution, including those regarding the breadth of jurisdiction, but it can act on prior legislation.

I agree with your point about kosher food, and would include halal food in the same context. Also, I would look at forcing a baker to create a special cake for the SAE fraternity at Oklahoma University, complete with verses from the fraternity chant or cakes decorated with a pornographic theme.

I do not even see why the discrimination law needs to change. I do not see it as discrimination when a business declines to create a product it does not currently offer for public sale. There is nothing in the law which should be interpreted to require a business to do something contrary to their religious beliefs or which they find morally repugnant. They need only sell the cakes and decorations they offer for sale. I agree with your main point; I disagree with your selection of target.

The interstate commerce argument is aimed at federal jurisdiction rather than the regulating law. Precedent expanding jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause predates Heart of Atlanta.

The opening salvo of Heart of Atlanta regarding jurisdiction harkens back to precedent from 1824.

7. The Power of Congress Over Interstate Travel.

The power of Congress to deal with these obstructions depends on the meaning of the Commerce Clause. Its meaning was first enunciated 140 years ago by the great

379 U. S. 254

Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), in these words:

[...]

379 U. S. 255

[...]

“We are now arrived at the inquiry -- What is this power?”

“It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution. . . . If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress . . . is plenary as to those objects [specified in the Constitution], the power over commerce . . . is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States. The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments. [At 22 U. S. 196-197.]”

In short, the determinative test of the exercise of power by the Congress under the Commerce Clause is simply whether the activity sought to be regulated is “commerce which concerns more States than one” and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest. Let us now turn to this facet of the problem.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) expanded jurisdiction under the commerce clause further.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/

Wickard v. Filburn

Location: Roscoe Filburn's Farm

Facts of the Case

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.

Question

Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wickard, 0 vote(s) against

Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Agricultural Adjustment Act

According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-30   15:26:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: tomder55, redleghunter, A K A Stone, willie green (#66)

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1228

HB1228 - TO ENACT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

Text: PDF / RTF

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/03/arkansas-senate-passes-religious-freedom-bill.php

Arkansas Senate approves 'religious freedom' bill

By Dominic Yobbi
Jurist
Monday 30 March 2015 at 8:07 AM ET

[JURIST] The Arkansas Senate [official website] on Friday approved a controversial bill [bill backgrounder] intended to protect religious freedoms of businesses. Those supporting the Republican-backed say it will protect religious freedoms for businesses, and those opposed say that businesses may be allowed to go too far with the law and refuse service to homosexuals. The bill states that "governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification." Supporters stated [Reuters report] that a business should not be forced to, for example, cater a same-sex wedding if doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the owner. Those opposed to the bill include local business giants Walmart [corporate website] and Apple [official website]. A Walmart spokesperson stated, "We feel this legislation is counter to this core basic belief and sends the wrong message about Arkansas, as well as the diverse environment which exists in the state."

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights remain controversial throughout the US. Last week the Indiana Senate gave final approval [JURIST report] to a "religious freedom" bill that would allow business owners to turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation. Earlier this month Utah lawmakers unveiled legislation [JURIST report] that aims to balance religious rights and protections against LGBT discrimination in the workplace and housing. In February an Arkansas enacted a bill, similar to the bill enacted Friday in that it prohibits cities and local governments from establishing ordinances with anti-discrimination codes became law [JURIST report] when Asa Hutchinson declined to veto it. Also in February Kansas Governor Sam Brownback rescinded [JURIST report] a number of executive orders by the former governor, including one that protected LGBT state employees from unfair hiring practices, sexual harassment and other types of discrimination at work.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-30   15:54:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: misterwhite (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

We can debate it.

My answer is: the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

That's what our law currently is, and I expect that it will upheld.

In particular, owners of private business have no constitutional right to bar anyone from service on the basis of the person's race, ethnicity or religion.

If you're going to open your doors to public commerce, you can profit from access to the stream of commerce, but there are certain things you cannot do. And forbidding blacks, Hispanics, Muslims or Jews (or Catholics, or Protestants) from using those services is the most historically important of them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   16:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: nolu chan (#68) (Edited)

"The law uses the term affects interstate commerce."

Fine. We'll go with that.

"There is very long standing precedent that something that affects interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, triggers commerce clause jurisdiction."

The long-standing precedent has been, "has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating." That was true for Wickard, The Shreveport Rate Cases, Raich, and a whole slew of others.

What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   16:15:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#70)

"the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason."

Sure he does. He has the right to liberty. The right to be free.

You are taking away his right. You're telling him he must work for others against his will. That their rights are more important than his.

I don't see it that way. I disagree with the current law.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   16:27:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: misterwhite (#64)

It's ridiculous to think that any minority cannot find a place to serve him what he wants ... and that it would interfere with interstate commerce.

What's ridiculous is for anybody think that in America, after a million dead in a Civil War and another century of racial strife and apartheid that only ended with a lot of heavy-handed legislation and Supreme Court rulings, that he still has the right to go into business and discriminate against black people.

Perhaps it needs to be stated more clearly: BECAUSE OF America's history of slavery and racial segregation, lynching and brutality against blacks, no America has the constitutionally protected right to discriminate against blacks in any way, or under any circumstances, other than in the privacy of his own home. It is entirely illegal in all of its manifestations in the workplace, or in commerce.

That's the truth of it. And unfortunately, given the nasty, stubborn, persistent desire to engage in that sort of behavior, and to defend it and connive at it, the only way to prevent the reinfestation by that particular form of political poison ivy is to kill it every time it pops up, with fire.

Too many people died and too much suffering has occurred for us to continue to pretend that Americans have the right to discriminate against blacks. They do not, and if they try, the system will destroy them. And should.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   16:33:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)

"that he still has the right to go into business and discriminate against black people."

Who said that? Not I.

I said in post #6, "The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason."

I didn't single out blacks, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   16:41:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: misterwhite (#72)

You are taking away his right. You're telling him he must work for others against his will. That their rights are more important than his.

That's right. I am.

He has chosen to enter the stream of commerce by which we all live. Its blood is the American dollar, which is a government creation. It's enforcement mechanism is the police and the courts willingness to enforce contract and property rights. It's a national market: states have not been allowed to impose rules that will materially interfere with the flow of commerce. The huge national market makes all of America more prosperous than it would be.

America has a specific bad history concerning blacks. We enslaved them and then segrated them, lynched them and beat them down. And then, once they were legally freed, the evil minds of many Americans sought to keep them down still by private means such as restrictive covenants in the sale of land (you cannot sell to blacks), or in hiring, or in forbidding them service in certain places of business, because they were black.

We killed a million people in a Civil War that ended slavery, and we had a long and bitter struggle to end racial apartheid. Because of the stubborn persistence of that evil, to root it out and keep it gone, the personal liberty of white people has to be restricted somewhat. You can still have a business and make money in that grand stream of commerce, but you no longer have the right to say that black people cannot come in, and you do not have the right to refuse them service.

If you hate them so much you think it is wrong for you to serve them, then don't go into business. But your right to operate a business as you please is no longer unlimited. BECAUSE white America fucked the blacks so badly for so long, some of your rights have been permanently lost in order to force you to treat blacks as equal.

That's the way it is, and that's the way it has to be, because some Americans were too evil to allow it to be any other way, so they ruined it for everybody. Once upon a time, business owners were completely free to do as they pleased. And once upon a time states were sovereign in their rights. But, because the states decided to use their states rights specifically to crush the liberty of one part of the population, the blacks, and because white business owners decided to use their rights as business owners to keep blacks out, and we had to lose a million lives to end slavery, the states no longer are permitted the rights they used to have: the rights to do that sort of thing had to be chopped away, and were. Likewise, because business owners just had to be evil, rules were made that no longer leave them completely free.

You're still free to run your business as you please, except that you have no right to discriminate against blacks and remain in business.

That's the way it is now, and that's the way that it has to be, because the racist whites were too committed and too stubborn to the principle of equality. So, they ruined it for everybody, and we all lost some of the rights we used to have, because it's the only way to ensure that blacks have the same rights we do.

There isn't any other way to do it, and we're not going back.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   16:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: misterwhite (#74) (Edited)

I didn't single out blacks, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.

The nation, historically, ALWAYS singled out blacks. That's what "States Rights" were always fought about: the right to have slaves, to extend slavery, to have fugitive slave acts, and then, to have racial segregation. In the abstract, "states rights" COULD mean a lot of things, but in the reality of American history, "states rights" meant the "right" of the white majority to democratically impose laws to screw the blacks.

That's what it meant, and the way it was overcome was by the concentration of federal power to cut down those states rights.

Heart of Atlanta was decided specifically because white owners prohibited blacks from staying in their hotels. The government said "nope" and predicated the decision on the Commerce Clause, specifically because everything is involved in commerce, and therefore the federal government has plenary power to legislate against anything, anywhere, that discriminates in any way against blacks.

The South was very stubborn in the Civil War and afterwards. But the North was just as stubborn. Those who were determined to keep the blacks down met their match in those who were just as determined to cut ANY such restrictions to pieces.

So, while some play an intellectual game of "general rights" and "business owners have the right", others - like me - reply - yes, plenty of rights, but SPECIFICALLY not the right to EVER discriminate against BLACKS in ANYTHING.

Because people like me know our history, and we know that that's always where it goes.

Always has, still does.

America cannot have a completely neutral "Do as you please in commerce" law, because too many people "pleased" for too long to crush down the blacks. And some still will, if they can.

Well, they can't, and the rules are written now to remove the ability to even start the argument.

Business owners were once completely free. Now they're not. And the reason they're not is because blacks were not free. Because blacks lost their freedom and were held down, to end that, business owners had to lose some of their freedom. They have. And that will stand.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   16:51:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: misterwhite (#71)

What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?

Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-30   16:51:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

He has chosen to enter the stream of commerce by which we all live. Its blood is the American dollar, which is a government creation. It's enforcement mechanism is the police and the courts willingness to enforce contract and property rights. It's a national market: states have not been allowed to impose rules that will materially interfere with the flow of commerce. The huge national market makes all of America more prosperous than it would be.

Wow. That sure sounds like we should do everything we can to keep them in business, huh? Yet the law you want to enforce is resulting in these businesses choosing to close rather than serve certain customers.

Oops.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   18:45:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Vicomte13 (#77)

"Civil Rights of Blacks, against segregation."

So Congress was regulating the commerce of Black Civil Rights.

Pure gobbledygook.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   18:47:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Vicomte13 (#76)

"Business owners were once completely free. Now they're not."

Enslaving blacks was bad, but enslaving businesses is good?

Well I'm here to say, "Let my business go!"

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-30   18:52:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: A K A Stone, Willie Green, Liberator (#40)

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for them.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€

CZ82  posted on  2015-03-30   19:06:01 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: redleghunter (#58)

Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.

I was going to bring this up to give the troll something to chew on but you beat me to it.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€

CZ82  posted on  2015-03-30   19:10:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Vicomte13 (#70)

My answer is: the owner of a private business does not have the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Yes they certainly do.

Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-30   21:09:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

and we all lost some of the rights

You can't lose a right. It is a right.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-30   21:11:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: misterwhite (#79)

So Congress was regulating the commerce of Black Civil Rights.

Pure gobbledygook.

Pure power.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   8:27:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: A K A Stone (#83)

Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave?

In general yes. If it's asking people to leave because they are black, no.

Because blacks were deprived of their rights for over two centuries, they are a special case. Whites lost their rights to discriminate against them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   8:47:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Vicomte13 (#86)

Does a church have a right to tell someone to leave? In general yes. If it's asking people to leave because they are black, no.

Does a black church have a right to ask someone to leave because they are white?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-31   9:30:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: A K A Stone (#87)

Does a black church have a right to ask someone to leave because they are white?

No. But if they did it, there would be no effective prosecution.

The problem in our history was not whites being deprived of their rights by blacks but the reverse, and so the laws, vigilance and force is directed that way.

It will be a couple of generations before this ceases to be the case.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   9:33:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)

No. But if they did it, there would be no effective prosecution.

The problem in our history was not whites being deprived of their rights by blacks but the reverse, and so the laws, vigilance and force is directed that way.

It will be a couple of generations before this ceases to be the case.

You are inconsistent.

Any person has a right to not associate with any person for any reason they decide, be it reasonable or unreasonable.

To say A black church can tell a white not to come because of race but not vice versa. That shows hypocrisy on your part. There is no other way to put it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-31   9:37:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Vicomte13 (#88)

The problem in our history was not whites being deprived of their rights by blacks but the reverse, and so the laws, vigilance and force is directed that way.

Affirmative action violates the right of White people and Asians. Probably others too.

So to correct that. If you were consistent. There should be set asides for whites to get jobs because they are white.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-31   9:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: A K A Stone (#89)

To say A black church can tell a white not to come because of race but not vice versa. That shows hypocrisy on your part. There is no other way to put it.

I didn't say that the Black church SHOULD exclude whites (and in fact, they DON'T - I've been to a few). What I said was the truth: they COULD, and the authorities would look the other way. This is not hypocrisy on my part.

When it comes to Black civil rights in general, and SPECIFIC allowances that are made for Blacks - the SPECIFIC limitations on States Rights, and landlords' rights (they cannot refuse to rent to them), and business operators' rights (they cannot refuse to serve them), and employers' rights (they cannot have a policy of refusing to hire them), the "special rules carve-outs" for Blacks, that I generally support, are not really a case of hypocrisy either. It would be hypocrisy if I stood up all the time and crowed about the Rule of Law as the be all and end all. But I don't do that, because I think the Law is an ass.

What concerns ME is the line in the Declaration that says "All men are created equal", when placed alongside of the screaming evil of American slavery until 1865, and then enforced segregation until 1964, followed by subtle but real redlining and other efforts to privately enforce discrimination.

I do not respect the notion of private rights to the point that I think that the white slavers/segregationists who imposed so much misery on Blacks (and on everybody else - a million people died in the war that ended slavery, and most of those dead were not black) get to hide behind them. They did just exactly that: "States' Rights" was SYNONYMOUS with "the right to segregate" and to extend slavery, for much of the country's history. "Private Rights of association" were wielded to redline, impose restrictive covenants, and keep the Blacks out.

I've seen the history and its bitter fruit, and I'm sick of the resistance, and I do not forgive the slavers and segregationists all of the lives they took to defend their damned practices, and all of the lives they destroyed to extract advantages for themselves.

So, I agree with the direction the country took: unable to persuade by argument and reason, violent force was applied, and had to be applied again and again and again. And because of that bitter experience, Blacks have to have PARTICULAR rights over and against those whites who want to exclude them. Which means that the perfect symmetry of states rights had to be significantly reduced, and the perfect freedom of association and contract had to be destroyed. Because those rights had to be altered to no longer permit whites to do THAT.

Had there not been a Civil War with all the bloodshed, and then 100 years of aggressive resistance to black rights afterwards, I would be more philosophical. But fact is, oceans of blood were shed, it was all unjust.

And given the inveterate injustice of the white segregationist side, and the bloodshed, I have taken a battlefield position: better the injustice be inflicted on white segregationists, who DO deserve to have their rights reduced and the freedom of their states curtailed so they cannot do THAT any more, than to allow the symmetry of the law to continue and the segregationists to be able to manipulate it to continue to oppress the blacks.

Even today, look where the argument goes. You want a concession that whites have the right to exclude blacks. No, that right has SPECIFICALLY been taken away from them, and from their states, forever, BECAUSE the whites DID IT in the past, so egregiously, and killed so many people to maintain their "right to oppress". That right to oppress was destroyed in war, and the defeated side STILL clings to its desire to fight. And as long as they do, so do I. My side won, and we are going to hold the other side down, by force, forever.

Is it unjust? I don't care if it is. Black slavery and segregation was MORE unjust, and given the intransigence of the segregationist whites, if injustice is going to have to be inflicted on somebody - and apparently it has to be - then I am of a mind to continue to inflict it on THEM, in favor of the Blacks, instead of ever letting the white segregationists get a foothold in rights and law again.

Call it victor's justice. The white segregationists are, to me, like the German civilians living in those cities down below. I'm an Allied bomber pilot, the Germans started the war. They may not be PERSONALLY guilty, but I don't care: they're the enemy, and I'm going to bomb them until they either get down on their knees and surrender or they're all dead. And then once they surrender, they never get to get back up completely as equals. In particular, freedom of speech is fine, except that you Germans no longer have the right to be Nazis, or to proclaim your hatred of Jews or Gypsies or other groups. You lost the right to be treated completely equally BECAUSE you went on a murderous tear and we had to lose a lot of our own to put you Germans back in a box. We did, and now there are rules. You do not have the same complete sovereignty you did before, and you specifically do not have the freedom to organize along those anti-Semitic lines, or even to discuss it neutrally. Your evil was too great, so now you will be silent about it forever, and if you decide to stand up for the Nazis, you're going to be put down. Forever. THAT form of expression lost its rights. Fair? Victor's justice. Effective.

Same thing with slavers and segregationists. They inflicted more bloodshed and suffering on America than the Nazis did. There is no right to be a segregationists. You do not have the right to operate a business that excludes Blacks. If you try, we will send armed forces to shut you down, and we will make an example of you so that others are dissuaded from trying. Break the segregationists, impoverish them and hold them down, and eventually it will be so unattractive that only knuckle-draggers will hold on.

In two or three generations, we'll be able to drop the PARTICULAR vigilance about black issues, the PARTICULAR sensitivity. But we're not there yet.

Hypocrisy? No more than it is hypocrisy to prohibit the Germans from being Nazis.

Segregationists in America are a defeated, hated enemy. They do not have rights to be segregationists, and whenever they stick up their heads they will be persecuted and destroyed. Freedom of speech does not include THAT speech. Try to go down that track, and you'll end up at Gettysburg again. Lather, rinse, repeat until it stops.

Whites don't have the right to exclude blacks from their churches. If they do, then the Church is not a church, is not tax exempt. Whites don't have the right to refuse to serve blacks in their businesses, or to refuse to sell to blacks, or to refuse to hire blacks. If they do, their businesses will be taken, and further financial punishments will be put upon them - to make an example out of them.

It is not enough to simply stop the behavior. People who try to engage in it need to be publicly destroyed, to frighten everybody else so that people are not tempted to go back down that tired old route. Nazis are destroyed in Germany. And white segregationists are destroyed in America.

It has to be that way, in both cases, because of history.

This is not hypocrisy. It's Victor's justice.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   10:27:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: A K A Stone (#90)

Affirmative action violates the right of White people and Asians. Probably others too.

So to correct that. If you were consistent. There should be set asides for whites to get jobs because they are white.

Not happening.

Blacks were enslaved until 1865, and they were forcibly held down until the 1960s. The lack of capital to start out with was a legacy of slavery.

Immigrants often lacked capital, but THEY could get jobs. Blacks were excluded from jobs, so they were not able to build up the capital either, for a century after slavery.

The segregationists, using the color bar at hiring, effectively maintained an economic segregation.

Also, the method of public funding has always ensured that poor areas in America have relatively crappy schools, and therefore, less opportunity.

This has always meant that Blacks had less opportunity because of structural restraints imposed on them in America that were never imposed on other immigrants.

A little less than half of the black population of America were born when segregation was still legal and enforced. This is not ancient history.

Therefore, to overcome this legacy of enforced evil against blacks, there is an enforced favoritism towards blacks in hiring. Slavery and segregation were enforced by law, and the antidote to the persistent economic effects from slavery and segregation are enforced by law.

Is it "unfair"? Sure. It's unfair to whites and Asians and others who didn't participate in segregation. So, what are the alternatives? Saying "tough luck" about the economic overhang of slavery and segregation will not cut it.

I suppose that, instead of hiring quotas, we could simply go to a system of transfer payments, to give the Blacks capital directly, as opposed to having them work for at jobs like immigrants have always happy.

That approach seems more radical, and is likely to raise resistance among whites and others who otherwise understand the historical evils that America imposed on Blacks.

We're willing to use the power of the law, through Affirmative Action, to get the employment levels that get the cash flow, to raise up the black middle class so that it will eventually be self-sustaining. That's acceptable. Wholesale transfer payments would be too immediately expensive and is, therefore, unacceptable.

You're not going to accept any of it. The opposition entrenched long ago. But it was always allied with the segregationists anyway, and offers nothing but leaving the Blacks in the squalor that America forced them down into.

So the debate on this is over. Once again it is a matter of brute force political power being applied across an irreconcilable divide. That divide was cut there by whites hellbent on slavery and segregation. American slavery and segregation lasted about 350 years. It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative Action and the countermeasures to reverse the damage done by Slavery and segregation probably won't last another 300 years. But the built in systemic disadvantages of blacks are still there, still visible.

Indeed, with the rise of police abuse of EVERYBODY, what is very likely to happen is that the disproportionate police abuse of blacks, which is rampant, will be the next battlefield, and it will be upon THAT battlefield that the police are finally brought to their knees and have a boot put on their neck.

And that will, long term, benefit everybody.

Of course the allies of the segregationists will never concede anything. So the debate is over. It's really just a matter of pure power now. My side won the Civil War. We won the segregation fight. We imposed Affirmative Action, and we're probably going to start tearing apart police departments and stripping away power from the police because they're abusing Blacks disproportionately. Some assholes don't get the message. So we're going to have to draw the sword and beat another set down.

And keep on doing it. Slavery and segregation were maintained by brute force against blacks. It was unfair and the slavers and segregationists didn't give a shit. Affirmative Action and stripping away the legal right to discriminate against Blacks, in particular, may be unfair in an abstract sense, but given the history, we who have imposed these measures do not care that the segregationists think its unfair any more than they cared about their unfairness.

It's Victor's Justice. It's necessary. The next target are the police. They abuse everybody now, but it is their abuse of blacks, in particular, that allows the full might of the federal government to be brought to bear to rewrite local police and prison rules. And you can bet your sweet bippy that reform in that direction is coming, and will keep on coming.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-31   10:45:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: redleghunter (#57)

Where's the Jim Crow claim?

Yesterday, I heard that the allegedly awful provision is Section 9. It offers that the law may be asserted as a defense regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party of the proceeding.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section 9

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-31   22:43:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: nolu chan (#93)

It wouldn't be a religious protection measure if section 9 was missing.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-31   23:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Vicomte13 (#92)

Victor's Justice is wrong and a lie. i know many blacks who have become successful businessmen, even multi-millionaires.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-31   23:21:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: misterwhite (#71)

What was Congress currently regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case?

They were regulating racial discrimination.

Regarding my point about the commerce clause and jurisdiction, it does not matter what Congress was regulating in the Heart of Atlanta case. They were not disturbing the long standing precedent regarding jurisdiction under the commerce clause. They held that what was being regulated has a substantial effect of the economy and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal government to regulate it.

The matter of jurisdiction is separate from the merits of the regulatory act. The expansive interpretation makes the jurisdiction applicable to almost anything that has a substantial effect, direct or indirect, on the economy.

Justice Scalia has written that, with Filburn, the Court “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason.” I agree with Scalia, but it remains that the clause is still expanded beyond all reason. Legislation cannot reverse that ruling.

http://www.powershow.com/view/236c2-ODIwZ/The_Commerce_Clause_powerpoint_ppt_presentation

Powerpoint, slide 14

The New Deal Regime

• During the 50 years since Wickard, Congress expanded national regulation into myriad aspects of national life, using the Commerce Clause as the constitutional base, all with the Supreme Court's approval.

• For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations such as motels, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, movie theaters, etc. throughout the country.

• In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) the Supreme Court upheld the act reasoning that racial discrimination has a substantial negative effect on the economy.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-31   23:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: redleghunter (#94)

It wouldn't be a religious protection measure if section 9 was missing.

I'm still not clear on what the ranting and raving is about. The effective date of the Act is not until July 1, 2015. It has not done a thing yet.

I view the cake case as an abusive claim of discrimination that does not exist.

The Supreme Court struck down that part of the Federal RFRA that applied against the States. That is why various states have enacted their own RFRA closely following the language of the Federal law.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/case.html

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

OCTOBER TERM, 1996

Syllabus:

At 507-08:

Held: RFRA exceeds Congress' power. pp. 512-536.

(b) In imposing RFRA's requirements on the States, Congress relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which, inter alia, guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, lib- [508] erty, or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," § 1, and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation," § 5.

[...]

(c) RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress' § 5 enforcement power because it contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal-state balance.

Opinion of the Court:

At 536:

It is for Congress in the first instance to "determin[e] whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment," and its conclusions are entitled to much deference. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S., at 651. Congress' discretion is not unlimited, however, and the courts retain the power, as they have since Marbury v. Madison, to determine if Congress has exceeded its authority under the Constitution. Broad as the power of Congress is under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance. The judgment of the Court of Appeals sustaining the Act's constitutionality is reversed.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-01   0:55:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Vicomte13 (#92) (Edited)

Blacks were enslaved until 1865, and they were forcibly held down until the 1960s. The lack of capital to start out with was a legacy of slavery.

I'm a little tired of hearing this millennial like excuse. It's been 150 years since slavery... and the highest elected political position is held by a black man. To Wit; THEY HAVE EQUALITY... and any special considerations towards any race will only be a contributing factor towards that races ability to evolve with modern day skills to compete with other races.

Affirmative action is like welfare. If used past only what's needed, the recipient starts to become dependent upon it.

A business owners right to do business with whom they want should out trump anyone's feelings. That's the bottom line here. The issue needs to be solved by capitalism... not legislating laws to appeal to weak thin skinned sheeple.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-01   6:51:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Vicomte13 (#92)

Not happening.

Blacks were enslaved until 1865, and they were forcibly held down until the 1960s.

Who gives a shit. They are all daed.

Here in the world of the living. My father didn't get a job because he was white. The black man got the job.

My fathers side of the family didn't even arrive here until after the civil war.

So people who support special privelagers for blacks can stick them up their asses.

If I don't want to hire a black I wont. It is my right. If I don't want to work with a faggot. I wont.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-01   7:59:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

When it comes to Black civil rights in general, and SPECIFIC allowances that are made for Blacks - the SPECIFIC limitations on States Rights, and landlords' rights (they cannot refuse to rent to them), and business operators' rights (they cannot refuse to serve them), and employers' rights (they cannot have a policy of refusing to hire them), the "special rules carve-outs" for Blacks, that I generally support, are not really a case of hypocrisy either. It would be hypocrisy if I stood up all the time and crowed about the Rule of Law as the be all and end all. But I don't do that, because I think the Law is an ass.

What concerns ME is the line in the Declaration that says "All men are created equal", when placed alongside of the screaming evil of American slavery until 1865, and then enforced segregation until 1964, followed by subtle but real redlining and other efforts to privately enforce discrimination.

You want to gas the democrats. All of them. 90 plus percent of blacks vote for democrats. So you want to gas blacks at a higher ration then whites.

So they can be gassed. But you also have to allow them in your store. Got ya.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-01   8:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: nolu chan (#96)

"Justice Scalia has written that, with Filburn, the Court “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason.”

With Filburn, Congress was already regulating the nationwide production and interstate commerce of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act in order to drive up the price. In return, Congress was promising to pay above-market price for the wheat that was produced.

Enter Roscoe Filburn who wanted it both ways. He grew twice his allotment, sold half at the higher price, and consumed the remainder. That wasn't the deal, and had every wheat farmer done this, the Agricultural Adjustment Act would have failed.

The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed to encourage interstate commerce. To say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot stay at a particular motel is ridiculous. Might as well say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot afford to stay at a particular motel and they should be offered a lower rate.

If Congress wants to pass the Civil Rights Act and say the federal government will not discriminate, that's fine. If a state wants to pass similar legislation and say the state government will not discriminate, that's fine.

But for thje federal government in Washington, D.C. to pass a law saying that private businesses nationwide may not discriminate, they've gone too far.

This phony-baloney court decision was as contrived as the "penumbra of an emanation" in Roe v Wade.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-01   9:41:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

"Segregationists in America are a defeated, hated enemy."

Louis Farrakhan is still giving speeches.

Oh, excuse me. You were referring to white segregationists. My bad.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-01   9:46:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: GrandIsland (#98)

"Affirmative action is like welfare."

The KKK couldn't have come up with a better program.

With affirmative action, every job, promotion, position, enrollment, etc. awarded to a black is looked upon as being issued solely because of skin color, not qualifications.

How else do you explain that every company in America now has racially diversified employees in almost the exact percentages as the population? Pure chance?

Does the government think that people wouldn't notice? And heaven forbid if the black fails at the task. It simply affirms what people thought all along.

Worst program ever.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-01   9:57:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: nolu chan (#93)

Yesterday, I heard that the allegedly awful provision is Section 9. It offers that the law may be asserted as a defense regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party of the proceeding.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section 9

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

The way I read that, it means that a religious person can bring a claim before a judge that his civil rights to free practice of his religion are being burdened by a public or private action.

What's wrong with that? The judge decides, just like any other claim.

Seems to me that the old adage "No remedy, no right" applies. If people have an alleged "right" to religious freedom, but it can be violated by public and private actors and the individual has no recourse, then the "right" only exists on paper as an ideal.

Without something like Section 9, there's no teeth in the First Amendment's religious protection clauses other than hoping to find a sympathetic judge. With Section 9, a judge at least has to hear the case. Makes sense to me.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   11:13:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: GrandIsland (#98)

It's been 150 years since slavery...

It has been only 50 years since the end of legal segregation, and only 35-40 years since enforcement really ended the practice.

Almost half of Americans lived in a country that had segregation. Almost all black people either themselves lived under segregation, or had a living grandparent or parent who did. And virtually all live under the nasty overhang.

You're "tired of hearing it"? Be tired then. The history was evil, the overhang of segregation and redlining and color bar hiring exists in the present living memory of people. You say business owners rights to do as they please should trump these other rights.

They don't. And they're not going to for another two or three generations. Everybody who lived under segregation has to be long gone, and everybody who grew up with them. Segregation and redlining and color-bar hiring have to pass from living memory before that is going to happen.

BECAUSE businesses practiced segregation, they lost the right to hire or not hire, or serve or not serve, whomever they please. Now, they MUST serve blacks (and anybody else), and they have to hire them too. Small businesses can avoid doing it if they stay small, but large businesses must do so. Any business that won't SERVE blacks will be swiftly put out of business.

That's the law. That's the way it is. It is this way BECAUSE OF American racism. And the effects of American racism within our lifetimes - segregation, redlining and color-bar hiring - are still very present and fresh. And therefore these rules will remain in place for the rest of our lives.

The white racists gave the rest of us no choice. They would not back down. They would not stop. So they had to be forced to do it at the point of a gun. So they're going to be, probably for the next 100 years, probably until the Hispanics are a majority who then change the law.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   11:23:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: A K A Stone (#99)

Who gives a shit. They are all daed.

Segregation ended in America in 1964. I was born before that. You were too, probably.

Not only are "they all dead", segregation is within LIVING MEMORY of all Blacks. All of them. A little less than half of the black population lived DURING the era of segregation and redlining. And every Black American has parents or grandparents who did. This is all within LIVING memory. People who had the dogs turned on them are STILL ALIVE to talk about it. And the economic overhang is here.

This is not ancient history. It happened during our lifetimes.

All blacks give a shit, and them plus the rest of the country that does form a victorious majority that will keep these laws in place for the rest of our lives.

Affirmative action and specific supervision of racial issues surrounding blacks will not be removed until the black population has risen to the same economic status as the whites, or the Hispanics become the political majority and change the law.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   11:29:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: A K A Stone (#99)

If I don't want to hire a black I wont. It is my right. If I don't want to work with a faggot. I wont.

If you announce that publicly, you won't have a business. You won't.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   11:30:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: A K A Stone (#100)

So they can be gassed. But you also have to allow them in your store. Got ya.

Babykillers are murderers, yes. But white racists still have to serve them in their stores if they want to stay in business. That's exactly right.

Abortionists are bad, but if they're black, white racists STILL have to serve them - and hire them - or be put out of business, because white racists are fucks who need to have their defeat jammed in their face every second, so that their children and grandchildren and the rest of the society decide that holding onto THAT particular stupidity is not worth the ostracism and constant defeat that it brings.

The segregationists keep saying they will rise again. Let them. Every time they do, they will be put down again. Lather, rinse, repeat until they surrender for good, or have all died out.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   11:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: misterwhite (#101)

The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed to encourage interstate commerce. To say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot stay at a particular motel is ridiculous. Might as well say that interstate commerce is affected because blacks cannot afford to stay at a particular motel and they should be offered a lower rate.

If Congress wants to pass the Civil Rights Act and say the federal government will not discriminate, that's fine. If a state wants to pass similar legislation and say the state government will not discriminate, that's fine.

But for thje federal government in Washington, D.C. to pass a law saying that private businesses nationwide may not discriminate, they've gone too far.

Nope. The Civil Rights Act was passed to try to force Americans to treat black Americans as equals. Racists were determined not to. Pass acts that are limited to government, and you don't uproot the problem.

Tie it to COMMERCE, though, and you can regulate ALL economic affairs, and you can force racists out of business, into poverty, and into outright starvation if they won't treat blacks as equal in the marketplace.

THAT is why the Commerce Clause was invoked by the Court - because once you go to commerce, you are talking about people's ability to make a living. The point was: if you're going to be a racist and refuse to serve blacks, you're not going to be in business at all, anywhere in America.

Leaving it to the states was not workable, because the usual suspects, the Old Confederacy, were never going to force equal treatment in the marketplace.

The only way to do it was federal power, backed by the threat of federal guns. That did it. The hard attitudes remained, but they could no longer be EXPRESSED in business.

In dark little corners, ugly little bars still had "no blacks" rules, and those rules stood until somebody noticed and decided to disembark there with federal powers behind him. Then the bar owner either submitted, publicly in front of the cameras - OR he refused, and was put out of business.

Remember how blacks used to have to get off the sidewalk for whites under segregation? This was an important symbolism as to who was boss and who was subservient. And THAT is the purpose of the public prosecutions, of never letting it stand ANYWHERE. To humiliate the racists by making them do, in public, specifically what they took a stand they would never do. The PURPOSE is to make them get off the sidewalk - to enforce their defeat and inferiority.

Attaching it to the Commerce Clause was DESIGNED to force immediate desegregation on pain of instant economic death to whoever resisted, and then to single out and destroy businesses and individuals who DID resist.

It worked too. Blacks can rent hotel rooms and eat in restaurants anywhere in America now, and nobody says a word. Most don't care, but there are still a few who DO care, who think "I have the RIGHT to say no to you if I want to because it's MY business." To which the answer is: NO YOU DON'T. And you NEVER WILL AGAIN.

There was nothing accidental about this, and nothing hidden about it either. The segregationists were always In-Your-Face, and the desegregationists are, likewise, In-Your-Face in response. It becomes a question of firepower, and the egalitarians have the biggest guns, so we won.

That's the truth. It never was an abstract argument with unexpected side effects. The PURPOSE always was to manipulate the laws to give the racists nowhere to hide, to strip away their ability to retreat into private business, and to force them, in public, to do what they said they would never do. To force the public defeat and humiliation, and make them back down on TV in front of everybody - in short, to humiliate THEM and beat THEM down and make THEM step off the sidewalk in full, intentional retaliation to what they did to the Blacks, and HOW They did it - the PUBLIC aspect of the destruction of the racists has been the answer to the public lynchings of the past.

It is as I said yesterday: Victor's Justice.

Some people PRETEND that it was all mechanical and blind and stupid. Neither side was blind. The white segregationists knew EXACTLY what they were doing and how they were trying to manipulate the legal system. And the white desegregationists also knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and chose legal thermonuclear weapons and very, VERY public and symbolic acts, in order to not just ease in desegregation, but to publicly kick the segregationists in the groin, and publicly humiliate and destroy them in order to intimidate them into not resisting.

It worked.

It still works.

And it's not going to change as long as we live.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   12:27:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: misterwhite (#102)

Louis Farrakhan is still giving speeches.

Oh, excuse me. You were referring to white segregationists. My bad.

Of course. Because BLACK segregationists are idiot poverty pimps living in slums without money. But WHITE segregationists were the majority in many states, and had great political power and a lot of money to enforce their will.

So Black segregationists could be, and have been, and still are, ignored as nobody nutjobs on the fringes, poverty pimps.

But WHITE segregationists are like Nazis in Germany - the old hated, defeated enemy who must be beaten down whenever he tries to stick his head up, so that the next generation and the next, of whites, who might be attracted to that culture, see the defeat, lack of opportunity, degredation, loss and humiliation as being too high a price to pay to continue the tradition, and leave it behind.

This has largely been successful. It has come at a terrible price, but there was no other way to do it. White Segregationists were proud unto death. So some had to be killed, and the others have had to literally be held down by the law, until death, which means a long, long, long period of surveillance and repression of that element.

Victor's Justice: the South - the segregationist part of it - NEVER gets to rise again. And when those elements appear in some corner, they get strangled in the crib.

This is not accidental. The Civil War was fought by two sides. The segregation/desegregation war was fought by two sides. Black segregationists were always marginal idiots and still are. They don't control anything that anybody but welfare recipients WANTS anyway. But White segregationists - THEY are the old enemy, the old threat - THEY are the Bedford Forrests, looking to Night Ride again. And their opposite numbers are the Shermans and Sheridans in Blue, still ready to ride them down at the whiff of resistance.

Too much blood was shed over the issues. The argument was settled by force, and was tried to be reopened by politics. It was settled again by force and politics, and the victors are never going to give the defeated side the chance to mount a third challenge. It's over.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   12:38:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: misterwhite (#103)

How else do you explain that every company in America now has racially diversified employees in almost the exact percentages as the population? Pure chance?

...

Worst program ever.

And this is even true in Atlanta, Georgia and Montgomery, Alabama.

Most effective program ever.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-01   12:39:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Vicomte13 (#109) (Edited)

The Civil Rights Act -- though noble and necessarily in many respect at the time -- has turned into a Godzilla of bureaucratic tyranny and fascism It is openly selectively violating the letter of the 14th Amendment. "Equal application of the law"?? NOT in practice and yet unchallenged in several cases.

At NO time is one citizen's rights intended to be compromised as judicial reparations for the past.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-01   12:48:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Vicomte13 (#109)

Pass acts that are limited to government, and you don't uproot the problem.

Tie it to COMMERCE, though, and you can regulate ALL economic affairs, and you can force racists out of business, into poverty, and into outright starvation if they won't -----

Not only racists...

Tie legislation to COMMERCE, though, and you can regulate ALL economic affairs, and you can force your conservative/constitutionalist opponents out of business, into poverty, and into outright starvation if they won't dance to the progressive egalitarian tune.

There was nothing accidental about this, and nothing hidden about it either. -- --- It becomes a question of firepower, and the egalitarians have the biggest guns, so we won.

You ain't won yet, 'comte'.....

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-01   12:51:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Vicomte13 (#110)


The Million Man March, Washington, D.C., 1995. Organized by .... Louis Farrakhan, that idiot poverty pimp living in slums without money.

Now wait. To be fair I'm sure you have some white segregationist who recently did the same thing. So go ahead.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-01   14:55:59 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Vicomte13 (#109)

Nope. The Civil Rights Act was passed to try to force Americans to treat black Americans as equals.

We are not equal. We should not be "forced" to treat anyone "equal". People only deserve to be treated FAIRLY based on their atributes.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-01   16:46:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: misterwhite (#101)

Enter Roscoe Filburn who wanted it both ways. He grew twice his allotment, sold half at the higher price, and consumed the remainder. That wasn't the deal, and had every wheat farmer done this, the Agricultural Adjustment Act would have failed.

In your description, Congress made a deal with Congress, dictating to Filburn how many acres of his land he could sow with wheat and harvest, even for wheat he intended for his own use.

The expansion of jurisdiction continues to have nothing to do with discrimination law other than to provide an excuse for the Federal government to claim jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce. Raised to its highest form, the Federal government can regulate and tax an individual decision to not buy a commercial product.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-01   21:50:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: nolu chan (#116)

The expansion of jurisdiction continues to have nothing to do with discrimination law other than to provide an excuse for the Federal government to claim jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce. Raised to its highest form, the Federal government can regulate and tax an individual decision to not buy a commercial product.

I was thinking about interstate commerce. Did you know that the air that we breathe has traveled across state lines?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-01   22:00:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: GrandIsland (#115)

We are not equal. We should not be "forced" to treat anyone "equal". People only deserve to be treated FAIRLY based on their atributes.

We are created equal, and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I don't believe that our nation was founded on a lie.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-02   8:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: nolu chan (#116)

"In your description, Congress made a deal with Congress"

Congress made a deal with the wheat farmers, promising to pay more than the going rate for wheat if they limited their production. Let's be clear -- Filburn gladly took their money when he sold his allotment on the market.

But then he violated his part of the deal by growing more than his allotment. Even then, that was allowed if he paid a small penalty. He refused.

"other than to provide an excuse for the Federal government to claim jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce."

So the FAA can regulate interstate flights but not intrastate flights. I guess a few mid-air collisions are the price we pay for freedom, huh?

"Raised to its highest form, the Federal government can regulate and tax an individual decision to not buy a commercial product."

That has nothing to do with the commerce clause. Why do you bring it up?

And, yes they can, though that is an odd way to put it. Others would say you pay less in taxes if you buy a commercial product. Examples abound -- donating to charity, buying a house, buying municipal bonds, having children, etc.

Or would you say the federal government "regulates and taxes" you if you don't have children?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-02   9:06:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: misterwhite (#114)

Now wait. To be fair I'm sure you have some white segregationist who recently did the same thing. So go ahead.

Protests? Nah. I've noticed the disproportionate police violence against and incarceration of blacks, though. And in light of the increasing police savagery against whites also, I have come to realize that the problem lies in intolerable police savagery that isn't justified. And the fact that it has long fallen more heavily on blacks is no longer evidence that the blacks are particularly a problem, but rather, that the cops treat blacks more savagely because they're black.

As long as cops were just doing that to blacks, it was colorably plausible that the problem was the blacks. But now that they are so regularly doing it unjustly to whites, it has come into focus that the problem lies in the savagery of the police force, in their attitudes. And the disprorportionate rates of incarceration and other problems are prima facie evidence of police racism, not inherent black criminality.

And blacks have the right to be angry about that, and to march.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-02   9:32:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: Vicomte13 (#120)

"but rather, that the cops treat blacks more savagely because they're black."

Cops treat blacks more savagely because blacks are more savage.

You see whites playing the knockout game? Mobbing stores and stealing? Wilding? Shooting each other in their own neighborhoods? Driving out local businesses (then complaining they have to walk a mile for a loaf of bread)?

Look at any of the videos posted here and you see blacks harassing, insulting, disrespecting, and resisting any and all police officers. Do I have to post Chris Rock's video again?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-02   9:54:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: Vicomte13 (#118)

We are created equal

If we arm wrestled... a guarantee you we aren't equal. If we were to fight, hand to hand combat... we won't be equal.

We aren't equal... and if you believe our country was founded on that concept, then you are sadly mistaken.

We are all individuals... and we are different. Treating us "equally" is why our society has problems today.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-02   10:12:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: GrandIsland (#122)

"Treating us "equally" is why our society has problems today."

Liberals need you to believe that we are all equal. That's how they justify quotas -- if we're equal, then there should be equal outcomes.

Well, sorry to say that equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes -- unless you force it. And forcing it is what causes problems.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-02   11:57:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: GrandIsland (#122)

Treating us "equally" is why our society has problems today.

So the central claim for the right to kill soldiers in the quest for American independence was a lie, and the Declaration of Independence is a piece of toilet paper that means nothing.

Got it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-02   13:49:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: Vicomte13 (#124)

Get back to me when you want to discuss the same topic. Not only are people not equal... but neither is your topic compared to mine. lol

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-02   14:33:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: misterwhite (#119)

[nc #116] "In your description, Congress made a deal with Congress"

[misterwhite #119] Congress made a deal with the wheat farmers,

No, the farmers made no deal. Congress dictated terms and decreed “obey.”

Farmer Filburn challenged the constitutionality of the law based on a lack of Federal jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a single state. The Federal government expansively defined its own authority to include anything that affects commerce among the states, directly or indirectly.

Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court.

Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, SCOTUS, 1 Pet. 328, 340 (1828)

If the government has jurisdiction, it has the power to act. If it does not have jurisdiction, it does not have the power to act. Almost all Federal law is now based on the expanded definition of interstate commerce.

[misterwhite #119] So the FAA can regulate interstate flights but not intrastate flights. I guess a few mid-air collisions are the price we pay for freedom, huh?

It is good to see that Federal regulation makes you feel safe.

You should hold your national discussion on how unlimited federal jurisdiction to regulate everything and anything makes you feel safe from the basket to the casket, indeed, from the womb to the tomb, nay more, from the erection to the resurrection. You can stress how expanded federal jurisdiction and regulation keeps us safe from too much freedom.

As to flights, the friendly skies are exclusively federal territory. However, I trust you to convene your national discussion of Federal jurisdiction and talk the government to death until it voluntarily concedes the expanded jurisdiction it has taken two centuries to consolidate. May the Force be with you.

322 U. S. 303 (1944)

Today, the landowner no more possesses a vertical control of all the air above him than a shore owner possesses horizontal control of all the sea before him. The air is too precious as an open highway to permit it to be "owned" to the exclusion or embarrassment of air navigation by surface landlords who could put it to little real use.

Students of our legal evolution know how this Court interpreted the commerce clause of the Constitution to lift navigable waters of the United States out of local controls and into the domain of federal control. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, to United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377. Air as an element in which to navigate is even more inevitably federalized by the commerce clause than is navigable water. Local exactions and barriers to free transit in the air would neutralize its indifference to space and its conquest of time.

Congress has recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce. Federal control is intensive, and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxies onto a runway, it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. It takes off only by instruction from the control tower, it travels on prescribed beams, it may be diverted from its intended landing, and it obeys signals and orders. Its privileges, rights, and protection, so far as transit is concerned, it owes to the Federal Government alone, and not to any state government.

336 U.S. 728 (1949)

Absent congressional action, the familiar test is that of uniformity versus locality: if a case falls within an area in commerce thought to demand a uniform national rule, State action is struck down. If the activity is one of predominantly local interest, State action is sustained. More accurately, the question is whether the State interest is outweighed by a national interest in the unhampered operation of interstate commerce.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-02   18:24:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: nolu chan (#126)

[misterwhite #119] Congress made a deal with the wheat farmers,

No, the farmers made no deal. Congress dictated terms and decreed “obey.” -- nolu chan

Well put, Chan.... But misterwhite is convinced that under his 'majority rule' theory, we are all, in effect, 'dealing' with ourselves in some sort of a great socialistic sense...

In other words, congress is only following the dictates of the majority, -- who must be obeyed..

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-02   19:41:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com