transltion: you wil deflect, back pedal, post opinion and fantasy and again nobody cares lmao. Ill stick with Facts rights and law. I know post it again maybe with your NEXT post ill care about your opinion.
I've asked you before, what facts? What do you have that isn't appeal to authority and propaganda? What actual evidence do you have?
I have evidence, I have instances of property and labor rights infringed upon in the name of nondiscrimination; and I only need 1 case to disprove your entire point. Which is why I know you don't have proof. You have words, nothing more. Words are wind. But you can put up if you'd like, instead of just deflection and intellectually dishonest argument. Can you rise to the challenge? Let's find out.
deflection, opinion and philosophy
until you offer anything legit theres nothing to discuss, your posts failed and continue to do so providing entertainment
im still sticking with facts, laws and rights
So no, you can't actually back up your your argument. Duly noted.
you've presented no facts, no rights, and only appeal to authority which is logical fallacy. I'm sticking with rights, demonstrated infringement thereof, and logic. When reason and logic seem like something you want to indulge in, let me know. Until then, have fun with your deflection, opinion, and propaganda.
BAM! called it another deflection and posting of opinions and philosophies but again . . . nothing changed lol
until you can post something relevant you got nothing, nota, zilch, zero.
Facts win again
Rights, laws, facts > than your meaningless opinion and continued failed deflections
I can do this all night and will its easy when i have facts laws and rights on my side and you have . . . . your opinion
I know you can continue your deflections all night, it's just that it's nothing of substance.
Nondiscriminatory laws have acted against property and labor rights of the individual in the past. That alone defeats your statement of absolute protection for all. You simply cannot counter it.
Thanks for demonstrating that I am right.
I do not understand what you are alleging or claiming.
right to association........ is not something government legalizes
its a right of the people.
government does not recognize a claimed right you allege that you have - you do not have it pal.
post 272#
post 274#
sure you do, you know exactly what i talking about......next don't say the government does not recognize right to associate, and you will not be wrong.
Im sorry for quoting you, but would you mind actually posting which specific rights you claim to have on your side. Thanks for refusing to do so in advance.BAM! called it another deflection and posting of opinions and philosophies but again . . . nothing changed lol
until you can post something relevant you got nothing, nota, zilch, zero.
Facts win again
Rights, laws, facts > than your meaningless opinion and continued failed deflections
I can do this all night and will its easy when i have facts laws and rights on my side and you have . . . . your opinion
I know you can continue your deflections all night, it's just that it's nothing of substance.
Nondiscriminatory laws have acted against property and labor rights of the individual in the past. That alone defeats your statement of absolute protection for all. You simply cannot counter it.
Thanks for demonstrating that I am right.
Im sorry for quoting you, but would you mind actually posting which specific rights you claim to have on your side. Thanks for refusing to do so in advance.
Prove that the 'harm' suffered by business owners from anti-discrimination laws is greater than the harm suffered by blacks in the south before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the harm suffered by Jews in the 1930s under Nazi-imposed segregation, or the harm caused to "untouchables" under India's caste system.
The right to be judged without prejudice as an individual and to be treated like an equal as long as one behaves appropriately. (waiting for someone to tell us this right doesn't exist because it wasn't mentioned by an American political leader from the 1700s)
No, that right doesn't exist because you cannot control the minds of individuals and some people may think certain things and may be less hospitable to certain people on their property or may try to not associate with them or a plethora of other things which happen in any aggregated system with large enough population and wide enough distribution of ideals and intelligence.
This isn't hard.
What people think isn't important, it is how they act. Perhaps I should just say "The right to be treated as an equal human being who is judged by his/her behavior."
We no longer have slavery, the Nazi's are not in power, India's caste system is India's problems. Anything else you want to mention that has absolutely no bearing on the present day discussion? Japan and China never got along, atrocities on both sides there. Why not bring that yo as well?
If you want to say that this perceived notion of "fair" is worth exercising government force against the rights on the individual sometimes, then so be it. But you cannot make the case that nondiscriminatory laws do not occasionally infringe upon the rights of individuals, because it has and will again. You can believe that this sense of fair is worth that force, but the statement I have argued against was the absolute statement that nondiscrimination laws uphold all our rights all the time. It obviously doesn't do so.
Past experiences and the experiences of other places show us what happens when discrimination is allowed. Jim Crow laws existed during my lifetime and the effect from them still impacts life today.
People should be free to do anything they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Someone thinking badly of another or being a dick just comes out in the statistics. The government must treat everyone as equal human being, but the individual doesn't have to. If they aren't infringing upon the rights of another, then there is no real problem.
The business owner who doesn't like serving a customer because of their race, religion, gender etc is harmed much less when forced to serve that person than the would-be customer who has to find another place that will serve him/her is harmed. When a person can't get a job or a home because of race, religion, gender etc discrimination they suffer far more than the employer or landlord will suffer from being forced to treat that person as an equal. In addition, society as a whole is harmed by the impact of discrimination based on prejudice and hate.
You have no such right. (unless you want to pretend that you making up things and calling them rights in the 2010s makes them rights)The right to be judged without prejudice as an individual and to be treated like an equal as long as one behaves appropriately. (waiting for someone to tell us this right doesn't exist because it wasn't mentioned by an American political leader from the 1700s)
Or he may just want to see how representative we are of the mainstream.
You have no such right. (unless you want to pretend that you making up things and calling them rights in the 2010s makes them rights)
Congress doesn't determine what rights you have.Congress recognized that right with the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title II. "After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, established the Constitutionality of the law,...."
Wikipedia
If that is what you believe, you look rather foolish attempting to discuss them in a serious light.All rights are made up by someone.
Im sorry for quoting you, but would you mind actually posting which specific rights you claim to have on your side. Thanks for refusing to do so in advance.
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?