Phil_Osophy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,450
- Reaction score
- 454
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
No, what makes you a segregationist is your belief that separating people on the basis of what they are rather than who they are is perfectly acceptable. Even endorsed.
Yes, the people dumping stuff on them are criminals, but that doesn't make them somehow warranted to be on that property against the owners permission. Trespassing is a crime, and the individuals sitting down in that picture are guilty of it.
Jeff Flake Wants Arizona Guv To Veto Anti-Gay Discrimination Bill
A bill that would allow Arizona businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals on the basis of religious freedom is headed to Gov. Jan Brewer's (R) desk, and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) wants her to veto it.
Flake tweeted Saturday that he hopes Brewer puts an end to the bill:
Need to work on your sentence structure. I agree if by "them" in your first sentence you mean the "criminals" vandalising the store.
How do you know the " individuals sitting down in that picture are guilty of" trespassing? Were you there? Do you know if the store owner or manager called for the police to come and remove the sitters?
The whole sit in business that took place during the civil rights movement was criminal; in that, they were trespassing on private property. For whatever reason they had this notion that they had the right to be on property they did not own, but the fact was, and still is, only the property owner has the right to be on the property. Everyone else in that building in the picture shown was there at the behest of the owner and that includes both those individuals standing up and those individuals sitting down.
“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.”
Sure it is growing....but there isn't much of a city right now. Don't get me wrong....Phoenix is fine....been there a number of times...but it is more of a big suburb than a city.
So - you don't actually know much about the picture. You just found it on the internets, OK.
Libertarian thought (what a joke) has never been shown to work in society.
Remember
Yes it is.
It is the right to free association.
I dont believe in seperating people. So where are you going with this?
There is the ever so small matter that not all humans could be citizens with 'rights' in 18th Century America.
No, you only believe businesses have the right to separate people. That makes you a supporter of segregation, regardless of how you wish to portray it.
You mean like homosexuals who don't like the fact that a state has a law prohibiting them from getting "married" should simply move to some other state?
You mean like homosexuals should have moved out of the US in the pre-Lawrence era when sodomy laws were still legal?
I meant like people who are discriminated against by a business are being told that they can simply go to another business that will accept them as customers.
I'd love to see you shout that when you a kicked out of an emergency room and denied treatment because the only man who can save your life does not want to associate with you.
But hey, the stone age had its merits too.
Seriously? What is it then?Not covered under the law we are discussing and the emergency room is not a private facility
But this is about people exercising their conscience, not about standards of operation.and operates under quite different standards of care than say, a bakery.
So far you offered two failed arguments to support that. Care to try again?This is a strawman.
I remember once I went to a video game store as a kid to trade in a game, but the store didn't accept it, so what did I do? I went to another store and traded it in there. There was another time, years later, when I went to get a sandwich at Subway, but for whatever reason they were out of bread(GG subway), so what did I do? I went to another place and got myself a sandwich there. Yup, it's pretty easy to deal with really. Sometimes you have something and you have to find someone willing to take it, and other times, you just have to find someone willing to deal with you. The thing about voluntary arrangements is that everyone has the choice to agree or disagree with the arrangement.
Thanks for enlightening us with your deep experiences with discrimination. Now I know that when black people in the south before 1964 were denied jobs, bank loans, prohibited from buying or renting a home in most neighborhoods, and denied the ability to go to a store, take a bus, or eat at a restaurant like everyone else by the private sector, they weren't harmed, just slightly inconvenienced.
Seriously? What is it then?
But this is about people exercising their conscience, not about standards of operation.
So far you offered two failed arguments to support that. Care to try again?
It is truly amazing to what extent some people will go to defend and endorse bigotry.
What makes it more troubling is that in this instance they are doing it in the name of religion, or by proxy in the name of God. Deus vult. When are the crusades starting?
It has nothing to do with separating people. I believe a man has the right to control his labor and property. Thats the bottom line. Just because he chooses to serve some people, doesnt mean you get to force him to serve all. He should have a say in what happens with his property.No, you only believe businesses have the right to separate people. That makes you a supporter of segregation, regardless of how you wish to portray it.
Thanks for enlightening us with your deep experiences with discrimination. Now I know that when black people in the south before 1964 were denied jobs, bank loans, prohibited from buying or renting a home in most neighborhoods, and denied the ability to go to a store, take a bus, or eat at a restaurant like everyone else by the private sector, they weren't harmed, just slightly inconvenienced.
Aren't homosexuals also subject to laws when the laws say that there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage?"
Weren't homosexuals also subject to laws which made sodomy illegal?
Since when is "it's the law" a good rebuttal in a philosophic debate? Look, I'll grant you if homosexuals had followed your advice and desisted in their agenda to devalue marriage and to overturn sodomy laws, that is, if they obeyed the law without trying to change the law, then your argument would have some merit, but that reality never existed, so it's kind of ludicrous to sputter and exclaim "It's the law!"
Protected class is a political designation in a body of law created by erroneous reasoning on the part of courts. This doesn't give us much insight into issues which arise from natural rights.
It has nothing to do with separating people. I believe a man has the right to control his labor and property. Thats the bottom line. Just because he chooses to serve some people, doesnt mean you get to force him to serve all. He should have a say in what happens with his property.
Black people eventually started opening their own businesses. Some of the black owned businesses, like night clubs, did better than white owned businesses
So let me see if I've got this straight. You are a black person who lives in a small town with one drugstore/pharmacy. You have diabetes and need refills of insulin on a fairly regular basis. You are perfectly fine with the owner of that drug store simply refusing to serve black people, and if a black person goes into diabetic shock and dies, that's just the breaks. At least the property rights of the guy who owns the drug store were upheld. Amazing.
The fight for freedom has to start somewhere. We Pro-Choice advocates have a long battle ahead of us for you totalitarians have been quite successful in your war against human rights and your spread of oppression needs to be rolled back.
Do you agree with people who burn the US Flag? Do you agree that the US Flag should be burned? Or do you agree that people should have the right to burn the Flag as part of their right to free speech even though you disagree with that speech and that action?
I don't believe that anyone in this thread has asked you to patronize a restaurant which only wishes to associate with white people, but any person who defends human rights has to recognize that such a restaurant must have the freedom to exercise the right to free association, just like we recognize that we don't have to agree with the burning of the Flag in order to defend the right of people to make such statements.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?