Somehow, I think the words "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" are going to be abused...
You've demonstrated pretty clearly that you're not capable of making such a determination.
No, it was based on a bad premise and if I answered the question in the way he desired I would be forced to accept it.
On the contrary, you seem to have an inability to read plain English.
Was that assessment a little too on the nose for you?
Fantasy land? So you deny you weren't going to pretend that regulating commerce among the several States had anything whatsoever to do with making someone sell a cheeseburger to someone else?
My heart doesn't bleed for those that want to prejudice over qualifications.
No, the body that rules over the citizens is the government. Are you part of that body?
You already know how I feel about the last part.
Actually no. It is a justified comparison you partisan hack.
I am done with you as you are dishonest and pretty much worthless.
I think society has changed a lot since the 1960's.
For one, the law has changed. Government's cannot force businesses to discriminate who they serve anymore. No more Jim Crow.
We never really got to see whether businesses would discriminate if given the freedom to do so, they were told they had to and then told they can't. Both dictates are harmful I would argue, the first being obviously much worse than the second.
Both profit motive and business image are good reasons why a business wouldn't discriminate. Any discrimination would likely be a statistical anomaly. A low percentage of people are truly racist in this country, an even fewer percentage of racist business owners, and even a fewer percentage of racist business owners who would take the risk to discriminate. And society continues to progress every day.
The problem with anti discrimination laws is that they actually lead to minorities being treated differently. That only delays progress for equality in society. Another problem is that anti discrimination lawsuits are hard to defend against, and morally bankrupt our legal system.
Do we really need laws against discrimination by businesses in 2013?
So, then, apparently you are arguing that the purity property rights should trump individual rights to ownership. If that is so, then accept my apology for assuming you are racist. I don't agree with you, however. In your world, people could refuse to sell property to blacks, refuse to rent homes or apartments to them, refuse to serve them in their restaurants. That's not a time in history I'm particularly proud of. A shame we need The Civil Rights Act(s) in all their permutations, but it's quite clear that we do.
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?