- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,443
- Reaction score
- 47,483
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Are you upset by the black people only dating sites?
i would be if i wanted to use it and was denied because i am not black
Are you upset by the black people only dating sites?
are they soliciting for business within the public sphere?
then yes ... but only to the protected groups, NOT all groups
glad you are willing to come out as a state's rights southern democrat willing to treat others differently only because of the color of their skin
i can sense your pride
i would be if i wanted to use it and was denied because i am not black
are they soliciting for business within the public sphere?
then yes ... but only to the protected groups, NOT all groups
I'm truly surprised by your take on this issue.
Do you believe that there's a constitutional right to assistance in seeking companionship and sex?
comparing government institutions to private institutions is moronic in this context
Why not all groups? Sounds discriminating to me.
it is more simple then that. he belongs to a growing class of losers in American society that sees job providers as the enemy. he wouldn't dream of stripping individual workers rights in such a manner, but job creators are a class he has no problem punishing
because it was found to be unConstitutional. duhWhy don't people have the right to determine they don't want to do business with people of a certain race, gender, sexuality, etc?
sarah palin would approve of that meaningless word salad of an expressionBesides the point was that trying to draw a line right in the middle of a logical chain doesn't hold up and will lead to all sorts of problems. Why would people in the future stop at your line in the sand when the logic you're using stops somewhere else?
nope, the association of blue eyed people is not protected
appears this is not material needed to be covered in first grade
Why? It's just for people who want to meet someone of their race. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
I'm truly surprised by your take on this issue.
Do you believe that there's a constitutional right to assistance in seeking companionship and sex?
His lack of tolerance is on display
View attachment 67203721
because it was found to be unConstitutional. duh
sarah palin would approve of that meaningless word salad of an expression
i am certain there is a Constitutional prohibition against discriminating against persons who are within the protected groups
And why aren't they a protected class? Is there a reason that blue eyed people don't get protection?
because blue eyed people are not found to be a Constitutionally protected group
I think it's actually the reverse. It's an abundance of tolerance that supports this type of nonsense clogging up the courts endlessly.
[emphasis added by bubba so his point is not missed]The right of private individuals to associate with people of their choosing was found unconstitutional? What part of the constitution speaks towards discrimination by private individuals?
It's not meaningless or any kind of word salad. Logically the idea that discrimination is wrong in the public sphere leads to a certain end result, but what people like yourself have done is try to stop things somewhere in between and act like your concussion is logically sound.
i am certain there is a Constitutional prohibition against discriminating against persons who are within the protected groups
being unacquainted with canadian law, i am unsure whether you have protections from such discrimination
not discriminate against the Constitutionally protected groups
or do you disagree with the US Constitution
[emphasis added by bubba so his point is not missed]
did you notice that the ruling was NOT against private persons