Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge say

[Athanasius68]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Not exactly. For example clubs can discriminate based on clothing. The policy has to be enforced the same always. Does it no. But you can't blatantly say no blacks. That is a protected class based on civil rights. Gays will ultimately be a protected class in all states and at the federal level. neo-nazis are not a protected class. You can say all day I long I refuse to serve neo-nazis and there is no legal issue there. The only problem you could run into is if you did one but refused others.

There are municipalities than ban discrimination for political reasons, which would seem therefore to include neo-nazis.

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) there is no dodge i asked a specific question and you are not answering.
Ill go slow for you so you understand the fact nobody was forced better.
why were they sued?
2.) no its not in anyway shape or form LMAO
3.) where did i claim he wouldnt do business with gay people? please qoute me saying that or admit you posted a lie and just made it up
4.) which factually by law is discrimination (the reason doesnt matter one bit) unless he makes ZERO wedding cakes its bigoted and discrimination.
5.) well you just proved you dont know what a strawman is LMAO The example is factual proof that service or a practice to a group can be done but another action is still discrimination. You false claim of strawman is factually false. Try again
The baker will not sell them a wedding cake thats discrinitnion
6.) No, "im" not saying anything im destroying your claims with facts and laws that say how it goes. The law says not doing a KKK or confederate sign is not illegal discrimination. If that fact bothers you write your congressmen but the KKK or a Confederate sign is not a gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc
7.) see #6
8.) good thing nobody is, that retarded lie already failed
9.) public access business have public accommodation laws that regulate them and then in specific cases there are also rights related to the same thing. You not knowing this explains alot and why you have no clue about this subject at all. Are you from america because that would explain your confusion.
10.) see #6

Facts remains there was no force, please let us know when you can post one fact that supports your false claim and makes it true, thanks!

#3. Then he is not discriminating against gays. He is refusing to sell to an act.

#6. Is your motivation here based upon your belief that the law must be obeyed? Or upon your belief that it is wrong for the baker to refuse to cater to gay marriage when he caters to straight marriage?
#7. Not quite on point-- the objection by the black songwriter could absolutely be for racial reasons. In fact, it would be quite reasonable to think it was.
# 10. In municipalities where discrimination for political reasons is banned, would you support the gay baker being compelled to bake a cake to celebrate some sort of anti-gay celebration?

 

[Cherub786]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

This ruling is absurd. The truth is that identities based on sexual ‘orientation’ is a postmodern development. The creation of artificial groups is in fact part of a broader agenda intended to weaken real marginalized groups based on religion and race. This is not to say that there have never before been people with homosexual tendencies, just that they were always considered as individuals with peculiar tendency, not as a collective group that requires protection of their rights as a group. It would be akin to saying that all bald people are now a minority group for social and political purposes who require protection of their civil rights. We can see that these kinds of identities based on sexual orientation are being created and sustained for a purely political and social objective of undermining actual religious and racial minorities who have historical continuity. This is something we racial and religious minorities should be absolutely aware of.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

#3. Then he is not discriminating against gays. He is refusing to sell to an act.

#6. Is your motivation here based upon your belief that the law must be obeyed? Or upon your belief that it is wrong for the baker to refuse to cater to gay marriage when he caters to straight marriage?
#7. Not quite on point-- the objection by the black songwriter could absolutely be for racial reasons. In fact, it would be quite reasonable to think it was.
# 10. In municipalities where discrimination for political reasons is banned, would you support the gay baker being compelled to bake a cake to celebrate some sort of anti-gay celebration?

3.) FACTUALLY wrong unless he does it to ALL weddings. He wont do weddings based on the sexual orientation of people involved THAT is discrimination nobody honest, topically educated and objective would try to sell the absurd lie otherwise.
If i hire women but only as cleaning ladies because i dont think women should be bosses that is discrimination against women, not "a positions". Your failed argument is akin to hey i serve blacks at my restaurant all the time they just arent allowed to sit in the dining room they gotta come to the back door in the alley.
6.) there is no "motivation" or "beliefs" im commenting on, im simply pointing out the fact that by law its discrimination.
7.) COULD be but that wasnt stated was it? nor does your feelings of it being reasonable matter (which it is not reasonable, objecting to white supremacy is not equal to objecting to white people on any logical or reasonable level). its fact and provable that matter.
10.) nobody is "compelled" in this situation or any others relating to this matter so no

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Because "voting with your wallet" worked so well at ending segregation? The sad fact is that in this country a business may actually benefit from discriminating against minorities.

So you can prove that voting with the wallet doesn't work? Try this on for size...if you attempt to spend your money at a location that is refusing you service because of your sexuality...you are a ****ing moron. And there is the issue. You can claim that "voting with your wallet" didn't work...but when you claim it doesn't work in the same breath as defending people for actually voting opposite of their cause...with their wallet...you make no sense.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

I agree it doesnt make sens good thing nobody is forcing them, this is why thier 1st amendment or religious rights are in zero danger and not infringe on in any way.

You know...other than being told to serve someone or close their business...when their religion opposes serving. Slippery slope here. But I know. The Democratic Party is the one true God.

as for your solution to go somewhere else the majority of time people do but that doesnt change the fact that the law was broken and or their rights were violated. should they just ignore that too? Should the guy that gets mugged just not walk down that street no more and not press charges? The girl that gets rapped just not go to that bar any more? Where else do you recommend people just roll over, not stand up for themselves and let people violate their rights and break the law? lol

If the guy continues to give money to the one who robbed him? Or the girl continues to willingly have sex with the rapist? That is what you are proposing here. Anyone who spends money at an establishment that refuses them service is a moron. Period.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.)You know...other than being told to serve someone or close their business...when their religion opposes serving. Slippery slope here. But I know.
2.) The Democratic Party is the one true God.
3.) If the guy continues to give money to the one who robbed him? Or the girl continues to willingly have sex with the rapist? That is what you are proposing here. Anyone who spends money at an establishment that refuses them service is a moron. Period.

1.) again nobody is being forced nor are they being told that. why post lies when they are easily proved wrong.
2.) WTH? :lol:???? what do the democrats have to do with this?
3.) factually NOT what im proposing here. Another lie that nobody honest educated and objective buys. try again and your dodge of my questions is noted (i knew they would be) lol

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) again nobody is being forced nor are they being told that. why post lies when they are easily proved wrong.
2.) WTH? :lol:???? what do the democrats have to do with this?
3.) factually NOT what im proposing here. Another lie that nobody honest educated and objective buys. try again and your dodge of my questions is noted (i knew they would be) lol

Again. Yes. They are being forced. Adhere to these rules at the expense of your religion (because religion is not important)...or you cannot run your business. That is forcing them to give their services. Especially if these people do not have another source of income. And the democrat party comes in to this because that is the only reason this matters. If this were a Muslim...it wouldn't be an issue. The left believes in entitelements. The right does not.

And finally. Anyone who attempts to spend their money at one of these places engaging in discrimination is a moron. Even more so if they are the ones facing the discrimination. And you are arguing that they should. At least in my system they are protected from their own stupidity by the moronic business owner who is refusing money.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) Again. Yes. They are being forced.
2.) Adhere to these rules at the expense of your religion (because religion is not important)...or you cannot run your business.
3.) That is forcing them to give their services. Especially if these people do not have another source of income.
4.) And the democrat party comes in to this because that is the only reason this matters. If this were a Muslim...it wouldn't be an issue. The left believes in entitelements. The right does not.
5.) And finally. Anyone who attempts to spend their money at one of these places engaging in discrimination is a moron. Even more so if they are the ones facing the discrimination.
6.) And you are arguing that they should.
7.) At least in my system they are protected from their own stupidity by the moronic business owner who is refusing money.

1.) there is factually no force that lie will never float hence the reason you cant post one fact that makes it force. if you(or anybody) disagree try your best i directly challenge you, you will fail and facts will prove you wrong every time.
2.) you mean the rules and laws they CHOOSE to agree to by contract of opening up a public accommodation business?
3.) no its factually not. were they FORCED to open a public accommodation business or did they CHOOSE too? were they FORCED to sell wedding cakes or did they CHOOSE too? Were they FORCED to break the law/contract that comes with the business they CHOSE or did they CHOOSE too? Facts prove there is no force.
4.) wrong again millions on the right support equal rights
5.) meaningless to anything being discussed
6.) hey look another factual lie, please quote me where i said they should be? ill wait, or admit you just got caught posting another lie LMAO
7.) your system and your opinion of it, is meaningless to facts, rights and laws of this country.

Fact remains there is no force :shrug:
you also dodge my questions again, i wonder why? VERY telling.
Please let us now when you can provide one fact that supports the failed claim of force and makes it true, thanks

 

[JasperL]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

This ruling is absurd. The truth is that identities based on sexual ‘orientation’ is a postmodern development. The creation of artificial groups is in fact part of a broader agenda intended to weaken real marginalized groups based on religion and race.

But that makes no sense at all. How is an "identity" based on sexual orientation less legitimate than one based on religion, for example? And there isn't any argument that LGBT have suffered from generally overt discrimination for at least centuries. So why would you conclude they don't deserve protections same as people of different races or religions who have also been discriminated against through the ages?

This is not to say that there have never before been people with homosexual tendencies, just that they were always considered as individuals with peculiar tendency, not as a collective group that requires protection of their rights as a group. It would be akin to saying that all bald people are now a minority group for social and political purposes who require protection of their civil rights.

No, apples and dump trucks. Have bald people been subjected to anything like the kind of discrimination suffered by gays through the ages? Of course not.

We can see that these kinds of identities based on sexual orientation are being created and sustained for a purely political and social objective of undermining actual religious and racial minorities who have historical continuity. This is something we racial and religious minorities should be absolutely aware of.

I don't see it. Can you cite any evidence beyond your mere assertion that this is true?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Do we need to have protected classes?

I said IF you are going to.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

I said IF you are going to.

How about IF we don't then

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

So you can prove that voting with the wallet doesn't work? Try this on for size...if you attempt to spend your money at a location that is refusing you service because of your sexuality...you are a ****ing moron. And there is the issue. You can claim that "voting with your wallet" didn't work...but when you claim it doesn't work in the same breath as defending people for actually voting opposite of their cause...with their wallet...you make no sense.

It sure did not work in the south to end racial discrimination and segregation did it? It takes laws to stop the cycle of racism and bigotry against minorities. The sad fact is that discriminating may even help a business get more bigoted customers.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Again. Yes. They are being forced. Adhere to these rules at the expense of your religion (because religion is not important)...or you cannot run your business. That is forcing them to give their services. Especially if these people do not have another source of income. And the democrat party comes in to this because that is the only reason this matters. If this were a Muslim...it wouldn't be an issue. The left believes in entitelements. The right does not.

And finally. Anyone who attempts to spend their money at one of these places engaging in discrimination is a moron. Even more so if they are the ones facing the discrimination. And you are arguing that they should. At least in my system they are protected from their own stupidity by the moronic business owner who is refusing money.

I won't argue that many evangelicals are morons since that seems to be what you are saying. The question is why should these morons be able to break the law?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

I do not think you have the right to discriminate. My reason is simple. When you get a business license you are EXPLICITLY agreeing to become a place of public accommodation. That means all public. Subcontract the work if you want but when you agree to that, well you agree to that.

Where does the business license say this? I've had attorney's refuse to take my case. I have had yard guys refuse to contract to care for my lawn. I've taken my car to a repair place and they said we don't work on those. I see signs in stores saying we retain the right to refuse service for various reasons.

When you take your business into the public do you get to discriminate as to whom you will give your business? Do you get to choose NOT to use a particular store and not give them your money?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

It sure did not work in the south to end racial discrimination and segregation did it? It takes laws to stop the cycle of racism and bigotry against minorities. The sad fact is that discriminating may even help a business get more bigoted customers.

It took a change in the people to stop the racism and bigotry the Democrats had supported for decades and that was not limited to the South.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.)Where does the business license say this? I've had attorney's refuse to take my case.
2.) I have had yard guys refuse to contract to care for my lawn.
3.) I've taken my car to a repair place and they said we don't work on those.
4.) I see signs in stores saying we retain the right to refuse service for various reasons.
5.) When you take your business into the public do you get to discriminate as to whom you will give your business?
6.) Do you get to choose NOT to use a particular store and not give them your money?

1.) did that attorney refuse your case based on gender religion race sexual orientation etc?
2.) see #1
3.) See #1
4.) see #1
5.) yes as long as it is within the rules of the law and doesnt violate the rights of others
6.) this has nothing to do with a public access business that must follow public accommodation laws

I dont know how they do it in your country but there rules and laws in america that regulate certain types of business and or protect peoples rights

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) did that attorney refuse your case based on gender religion race sexual orientation etc?

1.) I am the public and you are saying a business cannot turn down any public request for business.
2.) see #1
3.) See #1
4.) see #1

5.) yes as long as it is within the rules of the law and doesnt violate the rights of others
6.) this has nothing to do with a public access business that must follow public accommodation laws

Business is a two way street, why does one party get to discriminate and not the other ESPECIALLY when it is for a specific request involving the creative and artistic talents of one person and not just a product sitting in a display case or on a shelve.

I dont know how they do it in your country but there rules and laws in america that regulate certain types of business and or protect peoples rights

Well that is not in the business license at least not here, that is merely for taxes and tax ID's as in a DBA. And where do you think I live?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) I am the public and you are saying a business cannot turn down any public request for business.

2.)Business is a two way street, why does one party get to discriminate and not the other ESPECIALLY when it is for a specific request involving the creative and artistic talents of one person and not just a product sitting in a display case or on a shelve.

3.) Well that is not in the business license at least not here, that is merely for taxes and tax ID's as in a DBA. And where do you think I live?

1.) nope didnt say that at all try again. I asked a question that you dodged and ran from lol. Ill ask it AGAIN. (and you'll dodge it again im sure) were you refused service based on gender religion race sexual orientation etc?
2.) Again i dont know how it works in your country but here that is factually wrong. It is NOT a two way street in this regard. a public accommodation business has a contract with its business license minimum and or its location/municipality. That business must follow the laws and rules that govern it and it is not allowed to violate the rights of others.

Shoppers in general are not under business contract or license.

3.) I have no idea but since you are extremely uneducated about how law, rights and business works in america im guessing not here

 

[Cherub786]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

But that makes no sense at all. How is an "identity" based on sexual orientation less legitimate than one based on religion, for example? And there isn't any argument that LGBT have suffered from generally overt discrimination for at least centuries. So why would you conclude they don't deserve protections same as people of different races or religions who have also been discriminated against through the ages?



No, apples and dump trucks. Have bald people been subjected to anything like the kind of discrimination suffered by gays through the ages? Of course not.



I don't see it. Can you cite any evidence beyond your mere assertion that this is true?

Identities should have historical continuity. The emergence of a community that is called by an acronym “LGBTQ” is a fairly recent phenomenon. You have to ask yourself why has this identity been created so recently when individuals with homosexual tendencies have been around since the dawn of mankind? Scratch beneath the surface and you will discover a political agenda behind the amalgamation of these individuals with various peculiar sexual habits into an LGBTQ “community”.

What is that political agenda? At the moment it seems to be to as a justification for Islamophobia, which is prejudice against an actual group with historical continuity and over a billion adherents around the globe. You can see this by the recent elections in Germany, when the racist AfD led by a lesbian politician garnered more votes from the “LGBTQ” than the national average. It is being argued that Germany should be against Muslims and not accept refugees because they are a threat to the LGBTQ so-called “community”. They cite some Islamic laws of Shari’a such as that sodomy is a capital crime that is punished by execution (a law which is in the Bible too and accepted by Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians). Though in reality ordinary Muslim masses are not working to pass legislation in Germany’s parliament to have gays executed, but the LGBTQ are simply made aware of the negative but harmless sentiments Muslims have about them and decide to support a far-Right racist party which wants to implement actual harm against a community. It is the far-Right that is proposing actual legislation such as banning mosques, deporting Muslim refugees, etc. Has any political party in Germany or Europe in general that Muslims tend to vote for proposed legislation to execute people found guilty of sodomy? So one can see that the LGBTQ’s “fears” are absolutely irrational, and in fact they know it, but because of simply not “liking” Islam, they are willing to support the most racist far-Right parties that if such parties gain enough power they will inflict actual harm on Muslims. So the truth is that the LGBTQ politics is more harmful to Muslims than any conceivable Muslims politics can be harmful to LGBTQ. Now we know the reality of this conspiracy to transform obscure sexual practices into politically organized communities.

The historical discrimination of gays that you speak of has been altogether quite mild, especially compared to discrimination suffered by actual minority and marginalized communities which have historical continuity. In fact this artificial amalgamation of the LGBTQ as a community has given a precedent for pedophiles who too are now advocating for recognition of them as a legitimate community, their cause best represented by a group called NAMBLA and many other affiliated groups throughout Europe.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

It took a change in the people to stop the racism and bigotry the Democrats had supported for decades and that was not limited to the South.

It took a change in the laws you mean. Those racist southern Dixiecrats are now Republicans since Nixon promised them not to pursue civil rights anymore. How do you think the south became red?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.) nope didnt say that at all try again.

Yes you did

When you get a business license you are EXPLICITLY agreeing to become a place of public accommodation. That means all public.

Try again.

2.) Again i dont know how it works in your country but here that is factually wrong. It is NOT a two way street in this regard. a public accommodation business has a contract with its business license minimum and or its location/municipality. That business must follow the laws and rules that govern it and it is not allowed to violate the rights of others.[/QUOTE]

Same country and go learn the law

"[FONT=&quot]A place of "public accommodation" is defined as “an establishment either affecting interstate commerce or supported by state action, and falling into one of the following categories: (1) a lodging for transient guests located within a building with more than five rooms for rent; (2) a facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including such facilities located within retail establishments and gasoline stations; (3) any place of exhibition or entertainment; (4) any establishment located within an establishment falling into one of the first three categories, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that establishment; or (5) any establishment that contains a covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of that covered establishment. Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104830, 39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)"[/FONT]

Shoppers in general are not under business contract or license.

So what? Are you saying there is no contract when I go into a store and purchase something, then you have just implied the baker can decide what they will or will not take part in in their business.

If I am a painter and someone wants to to paint a painting of the KKK expressing their right to free speech and I decline can they sue me.

3.) I have no idea but since you are extremely uneducated about how law, rights and business works in america im guessing not here

See above before you try to get to snarky here.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

Identities should have historical continuity. The emergence of a community that is called by an acronym “LGBTQ” is a fairly recent phenomenon. You have to ask yourself why has this identity been created so recently when individuals with homosexual tendencies have been around since the dawn of mankind? Scratch beneath the surface and you will discover a political agenda behind the amalgamation of these individuals with various peculiar sexual habits into an LGBTQ “community”.

It's not a mystery why a community of gays didn't take hold. In the U.S. for example, sodomy was a crime and gays could be and were jailed for being gay. So 'communities' of gays that were open and public were just targets for police and others who would gather their names, get them fired from their jobs, perhaps arrested and jailed. In the 20th century, Eisenhower signed an executive order barring gays from ANY job with the Federal government. That ban lasted for roughly 25 years. Informal bans existed in at least thousands of other businesses. Almost every U.S. state had laws on the books criminalizing consensual sex between adult homosexuals. Those were the law of the land in many states until overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003 - just a few years ago.

Further back at various times, being gay was subject to the death penalty in many cultures and in various times, burning at the stake included. When not treated as criminals, potentially to be put to death, in most of the past 2000 years or so, they have been socially ostracized, excluded from society, most jobs, etc.


So when you wonder why a group persecuted throughout most of recorded history and at times subject to being executed for merely BEING GAY did not form open and public communities, you're just revealing a pretty impressive amount of historical ignorance.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

1.)Yes you did
2.)Try again.
3.)So what?
4.) Are you saying there is no contract when I go into a store and purchase something
5.) then you have just implied the baker can decide what they will or will not take part in in their business.
6.)If I am a painter and someone wants to to paint a painting of the KKK expressing their right to free speech and I decline can they sue me.

1.) factually did not, you posting lies that i did wont work. if you disagree simply quote me saying what you claim, it cant be done it will be you making it up lol
2 .) weird i dont see my name in that quote . . Try again indeed . . oooooops. Like i said i didnt say what you claim.
3.) its not so what at all, that critical and explain why you are complete confused and just about everything you are claiming is factually wrong
4.) yes there factually is no contract for you to go into the store or conduct yourself your choice in purchase in anyway, try again instead of again making stuff up
5.) no ididnt imply that at all since the baker is not a patron not to mention the baker CAN decide what they will or will not take part in in their business as long as it falls within the law and doesnt violate the rights of others. Again this is why you have to be from another country because thinking like this doesn't even seem possible from anybody actually from the US
6.) NO, they can try but theres no grounds for the suit based on illegal discrimination.

Maybe try studding up a lot more on this topic or move here to understand the issues.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Company’s ban against gay weddings is akin to ‘white applicants only’ sign, judge

It took a change in the laws you mean.

I said exactly what I meant.

Those racist southern Dixiecrats are now Republicans

The Dixiecrats all went right back into the arms of the waiting Democrat party and were reelected as Democrats and served in high positions as Democrats and then they all died off.

since Nixon promised them not to pursue civil rights anymore. How do you think the south became red?

They became red because of the younger generations who grew up under Democrats segregation and discrimination rejected them in spite of their attempts to buy off the black vote.

And I suggest you educate yourself about Nixon because your comment is entirely fallacious

Why Richard Nixon Deserves to Be Remembered Along with "Brown"

"In recent weeks Americans gathered to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, which overturned the “separate, but equal” doctrine and ordered the desegregation of public schools “with all deliberate speed.” However, many Southern schools dragged their feet on integration, with districts steadfastly refusing to obey the court order. When federal bureaucrats tried to intervene to force desegregation, tensions grew. Summing up the situation, Senator Richard Russell, D-GA, stated in 1970, “The people of (the South) are more worked up over this problem than anything I’ve seen in all my years in politics.” Enter Richard Nixon: racial healer.

In the fall of 1968, 68 percent of black children in the South were attending all-black schools. By 1974, that number had fallen to 8 percent. This extraordinary accomplishment was achieved through the shrewd political skills and raw courage of President Nixon, Secretary of Labor George Schultz, and Attorney General John Mitchell..............."
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/5331