The Tea Party might already be showing its true 'colors'

[foxpaws]

Good finds hrmwrm...

As I said - and these articles sort of point out...

I am far more interested in the fact that he changed his mind overnight, and whether or not we should now believe the 'new and improved' Rand Paul, or if he really is the hard core libertarian that his view points of only one week ago placed him as.

Because it is hard for him to be a true hard core libertarian. His stands on other issues places him elsewhere in the political spectrum.

So, only hard core libertarian on certain issues, and then, only at certain times...​

His viewpoint of life begins, and needs to be protected with constitutional rights, at conception, is not libertarian.

Odd to think that although he would be giving full rights to a couple of cells, those same cells might not be able to be brought into this world if his idea of private business being allowed to discriminate would be brought to fruition.

The birth that is going to happen 9 months after conception could be compromised, if, for instance, the mother was black, and wasn't allowed to go to the 'all white' privately owned hospital that would be able to accommodate the difficult birth and the aftereffects of that birth, but instead have to go to the rather sub-par black hospital. Those cells could die in the delivery room. But, that is OK in his world - Full rights before birth, limited rights after birth.

Those are the real prices of Rand Paul's ideals. As I read in another discussion on this...

Rand Paul will fight for the rights of a collection of cells, but the government forcing businesses to serve black people if they don't want to is a bridge too far for him.

So KS - let's get back to our little discussion - do you think that the government should back off enforcing non-discrimination laws in regards to private business? You mentioned that you were a landlord in Detroit. Were there times you wish you could have placed a 'whites only' disclaimer in your 'for rent' ads?

You asked us for our ideas - now it is your turn.

 

[shagdrum]

Is it tyranny to make laws to keep people from violating those basic principles on which our country is founded? Was Hitler's Germany a nation where people were forced to recognize that they must treat all men as their equals?

Sure, I don't agree with equal opportunity programs forcing reverse discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other feature such as that are truly violations of everything this great nation stands for.

You don't understand what I am saying.

Any law that clearly violates the principles on which our country is founded is bad law, regardless of the ends. I never commented on the ends of the law, but on the means; specifically specious justification through the interstate commerce clause. A clause that any first year law student can tell you is greatly exaggerated well beyond it's original intent.

In deceptively expanding that clause through "interpretation", the rule of law is circumvented. The rule of law is the only thing that stands between a republic and a tyranny. Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, Communist Russia, all were states that governed by the rule of man not the rule of law.

Don't mistake a disagreement with the means a law is enacted and justified as disagreement with the ultimate goal of the law. That is a distinction that most people (some intentionally, like foxpaws) miss concerning Rand Paul's statements.

 

[shagdrum]

In Defense of the Impious Rand Paul
Posted by: theoptimisticconservative

If there is anything that demonstrates enduring intellectual piety in American politics – fealty to doctrinaire positions, reflexive demonization of those who don’t express them as a form of religious observance – it’s the fulmination from both left and right against Rand Paul. I actually disagree with Paul quite seriously on foreign and security policy; I’m not a Paulista by any means. But the reflexive, religiously doctrinaire reaction of his critics certainly suggests that any remaining aperture in their American minds can today be measured, at best, in micrometers.

There have been two incidents now, since the Kentucky primary, in which Rand Paul has failed to prostrate himself automatically before a political shibboleth. One concerned the Civil Rights Act, the intent of which Paul has expressed full support for. His quarrel is with the element of the Civil Rights Act that authorizes the federal government to regulate private businesses.

The other is Paul’s criticism of Obama’s “boot on the neck” comment about BP, and of the general societal attitude in the US that everything must be litigated and litigable fault assigned for any bad thing that happens.

Now, it may well be that there is litigable fault in the Gulf oil spill situation, and that it belongs to BP. The cards appear, at least, to be stacking up in that direction – although I’ve reached the point at which I simply don’t believe what the MSM tells me about these matters any more. Since I haven’t researched the thinking on the spill’s cause, I’m reserving agreement with any position for now. But ultimately, it’s not an exercise in mere doctrinaire politics to suppose that BP may be genuinely at fault for the spill.

That said, it’s drooling like Pavlov’s dog to excoriate Rand Paul for not assuming that (a) there must, in principle, be fault, if only because of the magnitude of the problem; and (b) the appropriate way for our chief political executive to approach the problem is to assume fault, and promise to have his boot on the neck of a company with thousands of American employees (many of them in Louisiana) and millions of American investors.

Only if you think Americans are morons do you insist that they can’t handle the making of logical arguments and reasonable distinctions. It’s thigh-slappingly hilarious to watch commentators – people who actually imagine themselves to be independent thinkers – go to general quarters over breaches of their rigid, logic-chopping protocols for speech and political response. The Paul record on the Civil Rights Act is a particularly telling issue because quite a few Republicans are terrified of being seen as violating an article of faith – even though the highly questionable assumption of federal authority to regulate business practices in this realm is the same assumption at issue with the individual health insurance mandate. It’s to the advantage of only the left, for this assumption to be considered sacrosanct and beyond question because of what the assumption was made for.

Federal overreach in a good cause is still federal overreach. Republicans must reflect on this fact: that if we refuse to reexamine the loose thinking about federal authority in the Civil Rights Act – thinking that was strongly opposed by many at the time, as older readers will remember – then we have already ceded the principle of federal overreach, and, by our own agreement, there is nothing the US federal government can’t do to us.

The funny thing is that in the 1960s, men like William F. Buckley, Jr., Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan opposed the title of the Civil Rights Act that constituted federal overreach: that is, the assumption of federal authority to regulate local business practices. Goldwater ultimately voted against the Act precisely because of that one concern. All of these men – unlike, say, George Wallace – were relentless opponents of state-level racist policies. Few on the right today consider them to have been extremists.

America’s leftists, for their part, have long considered it wrong for those on the right to oppose central government action on the principle of limiting the federal government to enumerated powers. But in the decades of my life, this point of contention has shifted from an honest political debate to the enforcement of a religious doctrine. No longer are logical arguments made from the left. Partisans of the left’s point of view merely express reflexive horror, demonize those making the limited-government argument, and invoke the horrible problem – whatever it is (or was) – as the evidence that it is essentially satanic to oppose doing the thing they propose to do about it. Logical and temperate discourse has no place in this dynamic; it is reminiscent mainly of fire-and-brimstone demagoguery.

This is not just a dangerous way to make law, it’s a way that must inevitably lead to greater and greater overreach. Nothing we do, nothing we are is protected from the federal government if we sit still for these elisions and ellipses in our observance of constitutional limits. Most of the first ten Amendments can be effectively abrogated – and the abrogation called due process of law – by the exercise of the “authority to regulate interstate commerce,” or by findings based on “privacy” and the Fourteenth Amendment, or by the exercise of eminent domain.

Letting the federal government overreach in its application of these concepts, first in one instance and then in another and another, is what has led to the individual purchase mandate for health insurance and the other assumptions of federal authority in Obamacare. Under the Obama executive and the current Congress, every effort is being made to extend that authority far beyond what most Americans consider appropriate, from centrally regulating the thermostat in your home to forcing the internet into the “common carrier” model of television and radio, so that content can be regulated by virtual channelization and access- or broadcast-licensing procedures. (Bloggers, that means you.)

Tacit, unexamined acceptance of federal authority to do these things is what Rand Paul is challenging. In 2010, he is the one asking people to think, rather than to merely repeat doctrinaire talking points taught to them since birth. His critics, on the other hand, sound like nothing so much as children reciting a catechism, and tsk-tsk-ing over those who don’t recite it in exactly the same way. That includes many of his critics on the right – who have agreed to be governed by a list of pieties that makes effective dissent from the left’s religious doctrine impossible.

 

[shagdrum]

Rand Paul isn't a racist.
His comments aren't racist.
The Tea Party isn't racist.
And I'm just not going to give any creditability to this false charge by debating it.

If someone would like to have a discussion about what Rand Paul said and frame it in an honest way, that might be interesting. But that's not what was posted here, nor was that the purpose.

Quoted for truth.

Foxpaws is intentionally misrepresenting and distorting this issue in order to deceptively ostracize.

 

[shagdrum]

Rand Paul's Principled Stumble
by Robert A. Levy

Rand Paul has taken a principled — but politically incorrect — position, for which he's being pilloried. A look behind the 6-second-sound-bite version of his position might be helpful.

Despite how his comments have played, Paul has said he is glad that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. He accepts the Civil Rights Act as settled U.S. law — not to be revisited by the courts despite possible constitutional infirmities.

But, though the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 act, the law has a disputable constitutional pedigree. The Civil Rights Act addresses the conduct of private individuals, so it is not easily shoehorned into the 14th Amendment, which constrains only government conduct. And the act has nothing to do with reducing state-imposed obstacles to the free flow of interstate trade — so it should not have been legitimized under an original understanding of the commerce clause.

Still, the law was affirmed — and deservedly so — by the court because it helped erase an unconscionable assault on human dignity.

So Paul stands foursquare for civil rights but acknowledges the Civil Rights Act's possible disconnect from the Constitution. His position is therefore intellectually honest, unlike those who insist that, because the Civil Rights Act is beneficent, it must necessarily be constitutional.

Some activities — for example, torture — offend the Constitution even though they might yield widely acclaimed benefits — such as preventing a terrorist attack.

The remedy in such cases is either to amend the Constitution or to acknowledge the disconnect and recognize that the Constitution must not be a barrier to racial equality.

Paul's detractors misunderstand the essential nature and purpose of our Constitution. It does not speak to private power; it is not a criminal or civil code that private citizens must obey.

Rather, the Constitution has two primary objectives: to authorize government, then limit its powers in a manner that secures individual rights.

First and foremost, the Constitution is a code of conduct for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Both federal and state officials breached that code when they condoned slavery and, later, Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation.

Of course, the media have used Paul's forthright if impolitic pronouncement as an occasion to disparage his libertarian — that is, classic liberal — philosophy. Not surprisingly, critics either do not understand or willfully distort basic libertarian principles. For starters, libertarians are proponents of limited government. We are not anarchists.

My colleague David Boaz sums it up nicely: "A government is a set of institutions through which we adjudicate our disputes, defend our rights and provide for certain common needs. ... What we want is a limited government that attends to its necessary and proper functions.

"Libertarians support limited, constitutional government — limited not just in size but, of far greater importance, in the scope of its powers."

Ideally, government's role is to foster an environment in which individuals can pursue happiness in any manner they please — provided they do not impede other individuals' rights to do the same.

Regrettably, government does much more — and much less — than create a congenial civil environment. It burdens transactors with confiscatory taxes, favors politically connected special interests, coerces parties to engage in unwanted transactions, transfers assets and incomes without consent from one party to another and depletes our financial and human resources by undertaking foreign interventions that bear little relation to America's vital interests. Those are the excesses of government that libertarians struggle to rein in.

In addition, and perhaps least understood, a vital aspect of personal liberty is the freedom not to participate. In that regard, libertarianism is the antithesis of collectivism.

Anyone who prefers a social order that sacrifices individual liberty to attain equal outcomes is free to leave my libertarian world and form the collectivist society he favors. But he may not compel me to join.

Libertarianism does not foreclose collectivist arrangements as long as participation in those arrangements is voluntary.

By contrast, collectivists will not endorse libertarian enclaves within a collectivist system. Just try refusing to support the welfare state.

People who believe a deregulated free market leaves us worse off can create a hyper-regulated marketplace, shackled by government to their heart's content. They would not extend the same opt-out choice to me.

The essence of collectivism is force. The essence of libertarianism is choice.

 

[shagdrum]

Repeal '64
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Steve Stockman, among the best of Washington's freshmen Congressmen, holds a daily prayer session that staff members attend voluntarily. Last year, nobody could have stopped it. But thanks to the "Contract With America," Congress now has to comply with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The ACLU says Stockman may be discriminating on the basis of religion. Now it's up to the executive branch's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to decide. Like the rest of the country, Stockman's office will probably choose the path of least resistance: comply with the planners' wishes. The Left wins another one.

The incident points to the shortsightedness of forcing such laws on Congress. Bad law should be repealed, not extended, especially not to the only branch of government the people can directly influence. The executive branch can now effectively control the internal life of every Congressional office, just as it controls the internal life of most every business, bank, and educational institution. Already, the law is being used selectively against troublemaking Congressmen.

Sure, Stockman and staff can invoke First Amendment protections of religious freedom. And the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect privacy rights in homes, schools, and businesses. The Constitution has never stood in the way of civil rights enforcement. In the name of stamping out illegal discrimination, fundamental rights like freedom of association are denied daily.

The ethical gloss of civil rights has long since vanished, leaving only the brute power of statism to enforce an egalitarian agenda. White males, for example, are no longer fooled by the euphemisms. Whether its "set asides," "affirmative action," or "timetables," they know it means denying economic opportunity to them in order to benefit others.

Politicians are promising to do something about it, but they have missed the larger point. Our troubles don't stem from "quotas," "set asides," and the like; they stem from the presumption that government should be monitoring "discrimination" in the first place. Pass all the anti-quota laws you want. Until anti-discrimination law is repealed, nothing can block the march of big government.

Think about the term "discrimination." It means choosing among several options. Our every thought, word, and deed are choices among options. We stop discriminating only when we become slaves or when we die.

When the government got into the business of regulating our choices through anti-discrimination law, it was attempting to regulate our thoughts. It first forbid certain kinds of choices when made "on grounds of" race, sex, religion, and national origin. That was expanded to disability, which includes "mental" disability. Nowadays, our whole society and economy are burden by the anti-discrimination police.

This was the inevitable result of a 30-year old legal trick. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't forbid any particular racial or sexual configuration in school or the workplace. An employer or admissions officer is free to choose, so long as he doesn't choose for the wrong reason. Single-race or single-sex workplaces--freedom of association's acid test--were still allowed. But, according to law, they could not be consciously created. You can hire only white males, but you cannot intend to hire only white males.

How can we prove intent? This is where the trouble begins. Every decision is made from a mixture of motivations. Not even the actor himself can fully know what went into a decision. Certainly the government cannot. But by forbidding certain kinds of discrimination, the government gives itself power to define what constitutes evidence for malintent.

Courts, it's hardly surprising, took the easiest path. To prove discrimination, look for circumstantial evidence. They discover "disproportionate effects" and "disparate impact." This translates to: you're guilty because you have not hired enough women and minorities. To avoid that fate, you must adopt affirmative action, quotas, goals, timetables, and set asides: the spoils system now poisoning American life.

Let's say Congress wanted to stop shotgun weddings. So it passed a law saying: "Marriages entered into by parties at or under the age of 25 must be based on love, not convenience; Neither should this law discourage early married as such." This is enforced with $100,000 fines. After an explosion of litigation and government investigations, who'd be surprised when couples would wait until age 26 to get married?

So it is with the civil rights movement. Its members may protest that they didn't intend quotas and the like. In fact, the civil rights movement gave us exactly what it was supposed to give us: legal preferences for its constituents and institutionalized disadvantages for everyone else.

Here's a recent application. When the merchants of Union Point, Georgia, drew up a list of known shoplifters, the Justice Department intervened to stop them. Everyone on the list was black. In order to comply with the Civil Rights Act, some on the list would have to be white. If there are no white shoplifters--and black police chief said there were none--there can be no list and thus no property rights enforcement. Union Point is a microcosm of America under civil rights.

In the case of religious discrimination, you're guilty by choosing religion over secularism. By holding a prayer session in his office, is Representative Stockman culpable under the Act? Well, he's holding a prayer session, not a Black Mass. This might discourage Devil worshipers from applying for a job, a situation which the Civil Rights Act is supposed to prevent.

The hysteria about same-race adoptions is another case in point. Most adoption agencies allow couples to choose the race of their child. It's hardly surprising that when adopting a child, the vast majority of people choose their own race. The National Association of Black Social Workers, for example, encourages blacks to adopt blacks.

But the Institute for Justice in D.C. and the *Wall Street Journal* are pushing a federal law to forbid discrimination in adoption. As with businessmen in hiring, colleges in admissions, and hotels with customers, adoption agencies would not be allowed to take race into consideration when placing children. That is, a black family could not request to adopt a black child. An Asian couple with special affection for Vietnamese orphans can forget it. A white family could not request a white baby.

It's a fair assumption that no one wants to gamble when it comes to intimate matters like the race of your children. That's why, if passed, this law would destroy the market for adoption rearing rights as we know it. It would be just another of the thousands of enterprises destroyed by Washington's egalitarian planners.

It's conservatives, not liberals, who are naive about the real meaning of anti-discrimination law. They say they love the Civil Rights Act, "Dr." King, and the "ideal" of the color-blind society. They want to protect "individuals" from discrimination, but not "groups." They like "equality of opportunity" but don't like "equality of result."

Shelby Steele, an author whose status as a black man allows him to pronounce against quotas, says he would gladly get rid of affirmative action. But in that case, he writes, there would have to be "criminal penalties," not just civil ones, for discriminating against blacks. William Kristol, the Republican leadership's excuse for an intellectual, agrees.

This is foolish and dangerous. You cannot abolish affirmative action and quotas and still enforce the Civil Rights Act. Racial preferences are bound up with anti-discrimination law--logically, politically, historically, and jurisprudentially.

The Steele-Kristol proposal would actually be totalitarian. It would criminalize thoughts and intents that are already forbidden under civil law. If people feel pressure to conform to egalitarian dictates now, imagine how much worse it would be if jail were a possibility?

Neither is the California Civil Rights initiative much of a solution. This referendum says that neither discrimination nor preferences will be allowed in the conduct of state business. But such a law invites more questions than it answers. Depending on how it's enforced, it may not be an improvement.

Its authors hope to dethrone race and sex as criteria for state contracts and college admissions, and enshrine "merit" as its replacement. But "merit" is a subjective and nebulous concept. Isolating the abstraction of "merit" from race and sex will be difficult or impossible; the attempt will invite even more litigation.

What if not discriminating (as interpreted by courts) requires giving preferences (as interpreted by courts)? What if not giving preferences appears to be discrimination? What if the word "preference" is interpreted (by courts) not as quota but as a *de facto* lack of minority representation? As in: you have too many white males on the payroll; you must be giving special preference to them. There's no way to win this game, because, even with this referendum, the government still holds all the cards.

Quotas and racial preferences are already banned under the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts. These preferences persist because the only foundation they need is anti-discrimination itself. What good will banning quotas do so long as government has the ability to veto the results of private decision making?

It wasn't quotas that led to the class-action looting of Denny's, which ended in owners giving away 47 restaurants to the officially privileged. End every set aside, and you still have whole housing complexes harassed for keeping out criminals. Abolish all affirmative action, and colleges will still have to recruit the intellectually challenged in order to avoid the appearance of discrimination.

The only way to end the terror of quotas, and to establish a free market in talent, is to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The government needs to be stripped of its power to determine if anyone is discriminating or giving preferences (or even determining on what constitutes either). The government of a free society cannot have the power to declare holding subjective intentions, whether good or bad, to be illegal.

If a college or university wants a racial quota, fine. Another can have an exclusivist admission policy. The same goes for business: the government should never again tell anyone they have too many or not enough of this or that group. We also need to give up the notion of a "color-blind society"--a goal as absurdly utopian as socialism itself--and settle for real fairness: a neutral legal environment of contract enforcement.

Imagine a world without anti-discrimination law. Every employee would be planned and wanted. Business would be free to advertise for job openings without fearing lawsuits. There would be no more quota loans from banks. The credit rating would mean something again. The university could get back to being a place of learning instead of a victimological remediation center.

Don't count on Washington to end affirmative action any time soon. Neither party intends the overhaul of civil rights. The quota culture is so huge--in academia, business, and in the official philosophy governing public policy in this country--that it requires political root canal.

 

[cammerfe]

Name Calling

Congratulations to those of you who, although Liberal, succeeded in offering real thoughtfulness to this discussion. And, as usual, sucks to those who simply jumped into name-calling. Your responses illustrate the 'happy-whiny' dichotomy between Conservatives and Liberals of which Ben Stein speaks.

I won't spend significant time attempting to rebut accusations. Simply, out of a student body of about 1200, in the early '60s, because of my well-known attitude, I was asked to be mentor and room-mate to a Kenyan. And this at a time when the Caucasian 'establishment' was so antsy that I was called on the carpet and closely questioned for dating a girl from Guyana, then just in the throes of independence from being British Guiana.

My determination to look at people as individuals, however, doesn't blind me to the completely one-sided way our society views race relations, and the overbearing presence of 'Big Brother' in our lives.

I made my suppositions 'open' to bait the assumptions regarding race. I was actually using a mix of observational and olfactory elements on which to base the decision as to business-or-no-business to show how the power structure has intruded. 'Foxy' seems to suggest that odor is an acceptable criterion, but visual cues aren't. How ridiculous.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

Your responses illustrate the 'happy-whiny' dichotomy between Conservatives and Liberals of which Ben Stein speaks.

I actually hadn't heard of Stein's "happy-whiny" dichotomy. You have any links on that? I would be interested in reading about it.

 

[foxpaws]

I made my suppositions 'open' to bait the assumptions regarding race. I was actually using a mix of observational and olfactory elements on which to base the decision as to business-or-no-business to show how the power structure has intruded. 'Foxy' seems to suggest that odor is an acceptable criterion, but visual cues aren't. How ridiculous.

So KS, you appear to be saying that you should be allowed to judge a man by the color of his skin - correct? That would be a visual clue.

If I chose to smell bad - then, I shouldn't be allowed to sit in a restaurant, I would infringe on the enjoyment of others - I have made a choice, I accept the consequences.

I am a woman, then I shouldn't be allowed to go into a cigar store. I would upset the delicate balance of male bravado therefore the sense of camaraderie would fall apart, I should accept the consequences of my gender.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag – rather than posting walls of text that you pull off a conservative site, how about some personal opinion at this point.

Oh, that is right – the ‘right’ shares its opinions – so it can cut and paste articles like this. You wouldn’t think of deviating from any of the points in your ‘so called’ replies – right?

So, how about this little tidbit…

So Paul stands foursquare for civil rights but acknowledges the Civil Rights Act's possible disconnect from the Constitution. His position is therefore intellectually honest, unlike those who insist that, because the Civil Rights Act is beneficent, it must necessarily be constitutional.​

However, he doesn’t believe that anymore – or so we should believe from his campaign staff… So, now he is intellectually dishonest – correct?

Shag - Why do you think shag that Rand Paul changed his stand on Title II of the CRA in the span of less than 24 hours?

You posted an article that is incorrect, Paul turned around and now fully supports the entire Act – hook, line and the sinker of forcing private businesses to comply with federal nondiscrimination laws.

I know avoidance – and this is classic.

Or how about answering the real, underlying question here – do you support Rand’s initial statements, that private business should be allowed to discriminate?

It is a common libertarian stand – I think this is really important that people understand exactly what lies behind the flag waving and the chest thumping – if you are embracing all that is libertarian, people need to understand some very key principles – very, very limited government. I.E. – government has no place in the abortion issue, government has no stand in the gay marriage issue, immigration – unrestricted, the libertarian stand is let everyone in - so long as you don't violate private property, drug use – sure – go ahead – and make money on it too, government will take a back seat to private property rights, so say goodbye to zoning laws (that porn shop, which will basically be unrestricted, can move right into your neighborhood – across the street from your local elementary school).

As the tea party states it is for limited government - it really should understand the ramifications of that stand. Small government regarding property rights is one thing, large government regarding personal choice often is another thing... and real libertarians embrace small for both property and personal rights, it has yet to be seen if the tea party also would stand for abolishing government restrictions (and libertarians do this at all levels of government - state and local governments should have no more control over these issues than the feds) on say, marriage.

However, Rand Paul picks and chooses just very limited things from that laundry list of all that is libertarian. He isn’t a very good one, ask a 'real' libertarian.

People need to understand that libertarian doesn’t equate to how we view conservatives today.

There is a concept called ‘noble’. How the libertarians view the world is with noble hued glasses. I will be noble, I will do the correct thing. Businesses will be noble, they too will do the ‘right’ thing. However, in the course of history, we find that having faith in the noble ideal leads to incredibly bad consequences. Laws and governments have been created because we aren’t, in fact, noble.

I don't believe that government will be 'noble,' nor did our forefathers. That is why we can vote 'em out on a scheduled basis. We have factored in for the 'non-noble'. Libertarians don't factor in that it is much more difficult to deal with the non-noble in the private sector.

 

[cammerfe]

Je Suis Amuse'

...judge a man by the color of his skin...

Please read, in context, King's entire statement. And don't attempt to put racially-charged words in my mouth.

To say that what is smelled is, somehow, more germane as a criterion than something viewed, is the absolute height of sophistry.

What I'm saying is that no individual or, surely, no government has the right to legislate regarding my willingness to personally interact with others.

My right of personal choice is absolute. My actions must stop at the end of your nose, but you have no right to tell me how to think. And, that goes both ways.

KS

There are consequences of gender. I'm told that if you attempt to pee standing up, you stand a good chance of splattering your shoes.
I have no problem with your presence in a cigar store.

 

[cammerfe]

I actually hadn't heard of Stein's "happy-whiny" dichotomy. You have any links on that? I would be interested in reading about it.

Shag---
Ben was on Craig Ferguson's show last night and held forth for several minutes on the subject. It seemed apropos to these comments.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

Please read, in context, King's entire statement. And don't attempt to put racially-charged words in my mouth.

To say that what is smelled is, somehow, more germane as a criterion than something viewed, is the absolute height of sophistry.

What I'm saying is that no individual or, surely, no government has the right to legislate regarding my willingness to personally interact with others.

My right of personal choice is absolute. My actions must stop at the end of your nose, but you have no right to tell me how to think. And, that goes both ways.

KS

There are consequences of gender. I'm told that if you attempt to pee standing up, you stand a good chance of splattering your shoes.
I have no problem with your presence in a cigar store.

I have listened and read MLK's Dream speech many times.... but by the content of their character...

What I am trying to do KS is find out where you stand on the libertarian idea that the government should not block you from factoring in your choice when it comes to your personal property.

You owned rental property it sounds like. Were you tired of it being torn up, rents not paid, eviction hassles? Should you be able to be proactive regarding that? If you rented your property to a couple of black families and a couple of groups that were heavily tattooed and they all tore up your property, shouldn't you be allowed to advertise the property so your time isn't taken up with people you know you aren't going to rent to anyway?

Just like a restaurant owners - they know their customers, and maybe their clientele is older and fairly conservative. They certainly should be allowed to say that unwashed people shouldn't be allowed. It drives off their clientele - who they spent years cultivating, and could force them out of business.

That is what libertarians are basically saying - the government stops at the front door of my business when it comes to who I can serve or who I can show the door.

Do you agree with that?

 

[shagdrum]

Shag – rather than posting walls of text that you pull off a conservative site

Where?

how about some personal opinion at this point.

I could, but you will simply ignore it (in part or in whole) and/or misrepresent it. It is a waste of time attempting to have an honest discussion with someone like you for whom the truth and honesty mean absolutely nothing.

As Cal has stated, "If someone would like to have a discussion about what Rand Paul said and frame it in an honest way, that might be interesting." In fact any of this issues would be interesting if they were treated honestly. However, we all know you are incapable of that.

You are a shameless, lying troll and not worth the time.

There is no chance for honest debate when you are involved.

 

[FIND]

Mmmmm politics in action. Name calling, slanderous accusations, and saying it is impossible to debate or work with the other side.

 

[shagdrum]

Mmmmm politics in action. Name calling, slanderous accusations, and saying it is impossible to debate or work with the other side.

Not so much the other side as it is dishonest people on the other side. If someone is not willing to honestly discuss the issue based on the merits of the argument, there is no chance for an honest discussion. How can you have an honest discussion with someone if they simply mischaracterize and/or ignore your argument (straw man fallacy) and engage in demagoguery as a means of debate?

FYI: my statements concerning Foxpaws are in no way slanderous. The accusations I have made are based a pattern of her's that has been demonstrated countless times on this forum. Just do a little searching.

 

[FIND]

Not so much the other side as it is dishonest people on the other side. If someone is not willing to honestly discuss the issue based on the merits of the argument, there is no chance for an honest discussion. How can you have an honest discussion with someone if they simply mischaracterize and/or ignore your argument (straw man fallacy) and engage in demagoguery as a means of debate?

FYI: my statements concerning Foxpaws are in no way slanderous. The accusations I have made are based a pattern of her's that has been demonstrated countless times on this forum. Just do a little searching.

My statement was not only directed at you, sorry about that. However the Nazi references.... Either way, I could care less about a person's past comments. Foxpaws said his piece, just disprove it if you feel otherwise.

Now, personally, I can see how many people would see Paul as being a racist. Many of his comments suggest that he is pro-separation of races, but I honestly will not make that judgment about him, because he is a politician, and if there is one thing politicians are good at, that is showing you everything about them but the truth. Still though, I can see how many people can see him that way.

Second, I did understand what you said earlier, but I still disagree. I do not think it is taking the law too far to not allow people to discriminate based upon race. Your argument rule by law VS rule by man breaks down at this point. If you allow man free reign to discriminate, it is just the same as enacting the Jim Crow laws of the past, only this time, it is just unofficial.

Eventually you will have bands of organized racists segregating buildings, businesses, and eventually entire communities. This is rule by man.

Rule by law in my view gives all persons equal opportunity. Though, I am on one level against the equal opportunity act, because I believe it causes reverse discrimination, but, equal opportunity in and of itself is a good thing. People should be blind to things like the color of someones skin, a persons gender, a persons religion, a persons sexual preference.

I really don't believe these laws go to far. They are not restricting anyone's rights. Laws are made to protect ALL our of citizens, not just the ones with power or money. As I have said before, discriminating based upon a horrible odor, unwashed filth, drugged out idiots, that is a completely different matter, those people made a choice. But I am now, and always shall be a fervent believer that no person should be allowed to discriminate against another person based upon a characteristic they have no control over. Without laws to stop people from doing so, they will. Justice may technically be blind, but people sure as hell aren't.

Lastly, there are a number of logical fallacies and mistruths (mostly the occasional bending of the truth) in the long post you made earlier. This just proves that no matter which side of the argument you are on, there will be such acts. Foxpaws did make 1 very valid statement that you ignored. That was to post your own opinion rather than repost some other persons argument on a matter. The problem with repeating something someone else says is that when they are wrong, you are doubly wrong, once for believing them, and once for saying it yourself. Just for the sake of argument, I will analyze one such statement in the article:

Here's a recent application. When the merchants of Union Point, Georgia, drew up a list of known shoplifters, the Justice Department intervened to stop them. Everyone on the list was black. In order to comply with the Civil Rights Act, some on the list would have to be white. If there are no white shoplifters--and black police chief said there were none--there can be no list and thus no property rights enforcement. Union Point is a microcosm of America under civil rights.

1: The Justice Department intervened and asked the lists were re-examined because statistically, there should have been other races involved. Any normal person living in today's world would suspect something foul if they were told the only criminals were black people.

2: This is a pretty good example of an irrelevant conclusion. The fact that there were no white shoplifters has no effect on policing or enforcement of property rights. Race of an offender has nothing to do with the rights of the property holder. If there were white shoplifters and the police were simply not charging white offenders, then there would be a connection that could be made on the basis of race.

3: The statement Union point is a microcosm of America under civil rights if a fallacy of accident. Making such a comparison is ignoring obvious differences between the population of the US as a whole compared to a small community. Small groups of people can RARELY be compared to very large groups and have statistical similarity.

4: The whole posting can be seen as a fallacy of verbosity. This is a LONG drawn out article that one that does not already have that view would be unlikely to read. These types of long arguments are typical of those arguing a weak platform because they believe long statements are going to hide obvious weaknesses in their platform.

5: I might also point out the irrelevant appeals in this article, but I am sure you understand the point and are aware of such things yourself. I will assume for the purposes of our discussion that you are not just going to take something you read as perfect and beyond reproach.

 

[shagdrum]

...I did understand what you said earlier, but I still disagree. I do not think it is taking the law too far to not allow people to discriminate based upon race. Your argument rule by law VS rule by man breaks down at this point. If you allow man free reign to discriminate, it is just the same as enacting the Jim Crow laws of the past, only this time, it is just unofficial.

Eventually you will have bands of organized racists segregating buildings, businesses, and eventually entire communities. This is rule by man.

You are forgetting about Federalism. The Constitution, as written is only a restriction on the Federal government, not the states. While there is no question that the Jim Crow laws were inherently racist, that does not justify government overreach. Again, the means are the problem, not the end.

Also your theory of social causation concerning segregation and discrimination is bass ackwards. It had gotten smaller in scale (nationwide) between the end of the Civil War and 1964, not larger.

Also, do you want to look at what paranoia about "discrimination" has gotten use? Among other things it destroyed the black family and it (in large part) gave us the recent housing bust.

Rule by law in my view gives all persons equal opportunity...

Then you need to learn what rule of law is. It is a very specific concept that can't simply be redefined at when it is convenient for your argument.

I really don't believe these laws go to far. They are not restricting anyone's rights.

...except fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution like the right to property and the right to assembly.

But I am now, and always shall be a fervent believer that no person should be allowed to discriminate against another person based upon a characteristic they have no control over. Without laws to stop people from doing so, they will.

So I am not allowed to think racist thoughts?!

Do you not see how tyrannical, how Orwellian that sounds?

The state should not in any way discriminate. But to go beyond that is flirting with tryanny. Hate Crime legislation is unquestionably an attempt at thought control.

If you have any love of individual liberty then outlawing discrimination all together should be abhorrent to you.

Answer me this, would you discriminate in choosing a future wife and mother of your children? Would things that are out of their control (mental and/or physical handicaps, genetic disorders, race, etc.) have any effect on your decision? Go one set further, would you be discriminating in your preference for your daughter's future husband and the father of your future grandchildren?

 

[cammerfe]

Choice

I have listened and read MLK's Dream speech many times.... but by the content of their character...

What I am trying to do KS is find out where you stand on the libertarian idea that the government should not block you from factoring in your choice when it comes to your personal property.
----------------------------------
I see an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. My answer would depend on the circumstances. The right to have the choice, without government interference, is a necessity. Government, GET OUT OF MY LIFE!
----------------------------------
You owned rental property it sounds like. Were you tired of it being torn up, rents not paid, eviction hassles? Should you be able to be proactive regarding that? If you rented your property to a couple of black families and a couple of groups that were heavily tattooed and they all tore up your property, shouldn't you be allowed to advertise the property so your time isn't taken up with people you know you aren't going to rent to anyway?
--------------------------------
What a mass of questions!
Simple all-encompassing answer---
All 76 units of income property I owned were occupied by Detroit's Majority Society, except three units whose occupiers were Mexicans/ Puerto Ricans. I knew and accepted this fact before ever getting into the business. And I have no problem dealing with all and any people as individuals. Nasty people tear up property, regardless of 'color' or ethnicity. I never had to advertise. People would seek me out in the street, and ask if I had anything available.
-------------------------------
Just like a restaurant owners - they know their customers, and maybe their clientele is older and fairly conservative. They certainly should be allowed to say that unwashed people shouldn't be allowed. It drives off their clientele - who they spent years cultivating, and could force them out of business.

That is what libertarians are basically saying - the government stops at the front door of my business when it comes to who I can serve or who I can show the door.

Do you agree with that?

---------------------------------------
Once more, I insist on MY CHOICE!
KS

 

[lincolnx2]

I just have one question. Do you believe a person has a right to deny service to another person based on the color of their skin?

 

[shagdrum]

What I am trying to do KS is find out where you stand on the libertarian idea that the government should not block you from factoring in your choice when it comes to your personal property.

A: The Federal government has no CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so. I know the rule of law means nothing to you, but to most decent people it is kind of important.

B: The government has NO WAY to conclusively determine what factors you did and didn't use to make any decision. Unless they have some mind reading device I am unaware of. Any other means are completely arbitrary, subjective and ultimately infringe on the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

I know the rights of others are unimportant to you in your dishonest quest for social justice, but it is highly callous to simply ignore those concerns when so many have them.

 

[Calabrio]

I just have one question. Do you believe a person has a right to deny service to another person based on the color of their skin?

Do you believe that you have the right to deny a person your business because they would deny service to another person based upon the color of their skin?

And do you believe in private property rights and individual liberty- even if that enables people to do things that are ugly and rude?

Shag mentions the ends and the means.
Even if the ends are positive, that doesn't justify the means in which it is accomplished if it undermines basic liberties defined by the constitution.

The Civil Rights Act is incredibly sensitive and complicated, but being critical of the means in which it pursued a specific ends DOES NOT imply any kind of racism, or that you disagree with the ends being pursued.

If we have a free society that means we accept and tolerate some behavior we don't necessarily agree with.

 

[FIND]

Also, do you want to look at what paranoia about "discrimination" has gotten use? Among other things it destroyed the black family and it (in large part) gave us the recent housing bust.

No I will admit, this is a slippery slope.

Then you need to learn what rule of law is. It is a very specific concept that can't simply be redefined at when it is convenient for your argument.

I'm sorry, but I must say, I am quite aware of what the concept of rule by law is.

...except fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution like the right to property and the right to assembly.

but why should these rights also include the right to discriminate against another?

So I am not allowed to think racist thoughts?!

Do you not see how tyrannical, how Orwellian that sounds?

I never said you could not think that way. Acting upon those thoughts would be detrimental to the common good though, don't you think?

The state should not in any way discriminate. But to go beyond that is flirting with tryanny. Hate Crime legislation is unquestionably an attempt at thought control.

I disagree here. Hate crime legislation is an attempt to protect those who are particularly vulnerable. The only problem is, it is exceedingly difficult to prove mindset or motivation, therefore hate crime laws often backfire.

If you have any love of individual liberty then outlawing discrimination all together should be abhorrent to you.

Answer me this, would you discriminate in choosing a future wife and mother of your children? Would things that are out of their control (mental and/or physical handicaps, genetic disorders, race, etc.) have any effect on your decision? Go one set further, would you be discriminating in your preference for your daughter's future husband and the father of your future grandchildren?

This is an irrelevant conclusion. Choosing a mate is different from having a business. You aren't having intercourse with your customers (well hopefully not), and you require no intricate social interactions with customers. A lifelong mate must have interests, personalities, and thoughts that are stimulating to you in a way that keeps your interest. Therefore you HAVE to discriminate to chose a person you are married to or have children with. I would never go so far as to say outlawing discrimination should create a dystopia like that of the old short story Harrison Bergeron. You must leave room for personal enjoyment. In granting others the freedom to pursue happiness, you cannot take away another persons ability to pursue happiness, and I can see absolutely no justification for a person to state they would be happier if for instance, no mexicans shopped at their store.

That being said, I would like to say a physical handicap would not be an impediment for me to get to know someone on a personal level, however I will admit a mental handicap would be a significant barrier for me. Genetic disorders I would have to address on a case by case basis, but I doubt they would have too much impact on me, and looks I will admit to being quite shallow in some respects to, as sexual relations are important, therefore attraction is important. Race is not important to me at all, as I have often dated outside my skin color, and I can confidently say that the color of a persons skin has never caused me to feel any particular way about a person whom I am dating. Granted, I have been married twice now and have 3 children and a vasectomy, but I will ask you to take me on my word that I am answering as if that were not the case.

However, quid pro quo, would you say that you would never ever date or marry a person of another race just on the basis of their race?

 

[shagdrum]

I'm sorry, but I must say, I am quite aware of what the concept of rule by law is.

So you were intentionally misrepresenting it as something having to do with opportunity?

I would hope not.

but why should these rights also include the right to discriminate against another?

You are making up a right here and in doing so, effectively injecting a false premise (unintentionally, I am sure).

There is no "right" to discriminate and there is no "right" to not be discriminated against. To claim either right is to abstract yourself from reality in pursuit of an unrealistic Utopian ideal.

How can you objectively and accurately determine if someone is being discriminated against? The ways typically used are based on circumstantial evidence. They are subjective, ultimately arbitrary and infringe of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Circumstantial evidence cannot, in any way, prove anything.

However, you do have a real right to property (including a right to do with it as you please, within certain limits) and a right to assembly.

I never said you could not think that way. Acting upon those thoughts would be detrimental to the common good though, don't you think?

So the "common good" outweighs individual liberty? Most every tyranny established was founded on that notion.

I disagree here. Hate crime legislation is an attempt to protect those who are particularly vulnerable.

Bad and even tyrannical laws are almost always made with the best of intentions, usually toward the "common good".

The problem is in realizing the limits of humans to enforce those laws and to honestly take into consideration the trade-offs involved.

More often then not, moral crusades (weather in the name of religion or social justice) end up in tyrannical laws and, in the extreme, a tyrannical state.

The only problem is, it is exceedingly difficult to prove mindset or motivation, therefore hate crime laws often backfire.

BINGO!

That is why any and all attempts to outlaw discrimination backfire.

You can try and outlaw the effects of discrimination, but even then how do you enforce such a law? What trade-offs are involved?

This is an irrelevant conclusion.

I am not drawing any conclusion. I am simply asking a question.

Choosing a mate is different from having a business.

Why? Specifically, in what relevant sense is this different?

You aren't having intercourse with your customers (well hopefully not), and you require no intricate social interactions with customers.

irrelevant to the question.

A lifelong mate must have interests, personalities, and thoughts that are stimulating to you in a way that keeps your interest.

Again, irrelevant to the question.

Therefore you HAVE to discriminate to chose a person you are married to or have children with.

Is that a yes?

I would never go so far as to say outlawing discrimination should create a dystopia like that of the old short story Harrison Bergeron. You must leave room for personal enjoyment.

What about personal enjoyment concerning my property (like a business)? I have a right to property and that includes a right to do with it as I please.

In granting others the freedom to pursue happiness, you cannot take away another persons ability to pursue happiness

Freedoms are not "granted". Rights are not "given" they are self evident truths in nature that transcend any government or society.

What if my happiness is in having a private organization with only WASP's in it? Or in having a private organization that furthers the education of only black students?

I can see absolutely no justification for a person to state they would be happier if for instance, no mexicans shopped at their store.

But who would be in the best position to make that determination? No one (including you) can foresee all possible circumstances.

American society's values are such that discrimination in certain areas is abhorrent to us. There are plenty of social mechanisms to deal with a business that conducts itself in such a way, especially with the age of instant information. Laws are only necessary to a point and Federal law in this area is foolish and unconstitutional.

That being said, I would like to say a physical handicap would not be an impediment for me to get to know someone on a personal level, however I will admit a mental handicap would be a significant barrier for me.

So yes. Maybe not in all things (race, hopefully physical handicaps), but in some things, it would be a factor.

However, quid pro quo, would you say that you would never ever date or marry a person of another race just on the basis of their race?

Not much of an issue in my case, but I wouldn't think so. Can't know for sure unless and until I am confronted by it. I don't think any race is less or more capable concerning mental abilities, is somehow "genetically inferior" or what not. It would have to do with a person's personality, their individual intellectual level, etc.

 

[FIND]

So you were intentionally misrepresenting it as something having to do with opportunity?

I would hope not.

No, I am not. You are interpreting it differently to suit your own purposes. Rule by law infers that no one is above the law, and this should infer legal egalitarianism. Equality under the law. Explain to me how rule of law should not include equal treatment?

Rule of law means the basic principles and constitution of this country are the absolute that all people must adhere to. This country was founded on the principle that all men were created equal.

You are making up a right here and in doing so, effectively injecting a false premise (unintentionally, I am sure).

There is no "right" to discriminate and there is no "right" to not be discriminated against. To claim either right is to abstract yourself from reality in pursuit of an unrealistic Utopian ideal.

Then in that case, you must admit that a person cannot exclude another from something on the basis of race or other such attributes.

How can you objectively and accurately determine if someone is being discriminated against? The ways typically used are based on circumstantial evidence. They are subjective, ultimately arbitrary and infringe of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Circumstantial evidence cannot, in any way, prove anything.

true, therein the difficulty lies. However, I cannot accept the alternative, and that is to allow chaotic behavior that is damaging to others. Some, if not many, would take their personal liberty and encroach upon the liberty of others. Some are beyond the powers or means of others to stop from doing so. This is why we need a society of law that prevents oppression. Unfortunately, with this we are faced with a tightrope act attempting to balance civil liberties and personal liberties with those of others. Still, I cannot accept the alternative, give up and allow people to oppress others as they please.

However, you do have a real right to property (including a right to do with it as you please, within certain limits) and a right to assembly.

And I would not say otherwise. Those right should not be used to infringe upon the rights of another human being however.

So the "common good" outweighs individual liberty? Most every tyranny established was founded on that notion.

non sequitur. A tyranny may say it is for the common good, but it is not necessarily for the common good, and even if it was founded on that notion, that does not infer that any civilization founded on the common good is automatically a tyranny. Most productive civilization is founded on the notion of the common good.

Bad and even tyrannical laws are almost always made with the best of intentions, usually toward the "common good".

once again, a non sequitur. Good laws are also made with the best of intentions and are usually toward the common good.

The problem is in realizing the limits of humans to enforce those laws and to honestly take into consideration the trade-offs involved.

this is true.

More often then not, moral crusades (weather in the name of religion or social justice) end up in tyrannical laws and, in the extreme, a tyrannical state.

This is only true in extreme cases, and more often in the case of crusades in the name of religion than social justice. Those cases of course stand out more, but history is full of crusades in the name of social justice that did not end in tyrannical laws. Would you say that the emancipation of slaves in the US ended in tyrannical laws? We told people that people weren't property. Sure, some people felt it was tyranny and interfering with their rights.

That is why any and all attempts to outlaw discrimination backfire.

False. But many attempts to outlaw discrimination do come with negative effects. However, without such attempts, gays and people of the other than Caucasian persuasion would not be able to enlist in the military. There would be segregation in schools and public places. Blacks and women would not be allowed to vote. The list goes on and on.

You can try and outlaw the effects of discrimination, but even then how do you enforce such a law? What trade-offs are involved?

It is a touchy situation. The best solution would be for everyone in the country to stop being douche bags.... but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am not drawing any conclusion. I am simply asking a question.

You are linking discrimination against someone with whom you have a business relationship and a personal relationship.

Why? Specifically, in what relevant sense is this different?

in exactly the senses I pointed out.

irrelevant to the question.

Again, irrelevant to the question.

Care to explain how these are NOT relevant to illustrating the differences between a personal relationship and a business relationship?

Is that a yes?

I am not going to justify a loaded question like this with an answer.

What about personal enjoyment concerning my property (like a business)? I have a right to property and that includes a right to do with it as I please.

Then please enlighten me, how does the race of your clientele effect your personal enjoyment of your business property.

Freedoms are not "granted". Rights are not "given" they are self evident truths in nature that transcend any government or society.

correct, that was a poor choice of words on my part.

What if my happiness is in having a private organization with only WASP's in it? Or in having a private organization that furthers the education of only black students?

How? Tell me how the race of those in your organization makes you happier? As to the later part of that, that is another example of the slippery slope that often leads to reverse discrimination, however, statistically speaking, black students are more in need than white students. Obviously that is not true on a case by case basis, but as a whole, a larger percentage of them live in disadvantaged situations, and require additional help. I wish this wasn't true, because organizations like that further separation and stereotypes, but hey, can't have everything right?

But who would be in the best position to make that determination? No one (including you) can foresee all possible circumstances.

If you can tell me even ONE relevant way not allowing hispanics to shop at a business will make a person happier, that has nothing to do with racist motivation, I will retract this statement. Obviously a majority of hispanics speak english, so that is not a barrier to most people. I would never say that a business owner would have to employ translators to serve members of the community who do not speak english, so obviously you could deny service to someone on the basis of a language barrier that makes it impossible to conduct business. Until you can give one valid reason that a person would enjoy their business further by being able to limit the differences in skin color, without resorting to simple racial preference, I stand firmly by this statement.

American society's values are such that discrimination in certain areas is abhorrent to us. There are plenty of social mechanisms to deal with a business that conducts itself in such a way, especially with the age of instant information. Laws are only necessary to a point and Federal law in this area is foolish and unconstitutional.

I disagree, and we could certainly find many places in this country where discrimination is not frowned upon. In fact, we could probably find many places where it is widely encouraged. I have been many of those places myself, and even as a white guy, I have experienced such. On several occasions I have found myself hanging out with gay or lesbian friends among groups of people where there was a great deal of hateful propoganda spewed forth against homosexuals. Honestly, I felt bad for them. They shouldn't have to put up with that crap, but we don't stop anyone from voicing their opinion. In the town I currently live in, my old criminal justice professor frequently recants the story of one of his students, a gay man, who was beaten severely and then killed by two other men, because he was gay. When asked why, they gave responses like, "he came onto me." Please note, there was no physical interaction, they killed him on the basis that they felt like he was flirting with them. Acting on their hate of gay people cost someone their life. This was not in the interest of the common good now was it?

Also care to tell me how this is unconstitutional? Allow me to requote the preamble to the constitution

We the people of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America

I eagerly await your rebuttal to this. I hear people say all the time that this is unconstitutional, or that is unconstitutional, but more often than not, it is just pointless rhetoric and wishful thinking brought about by a basic misunderstanding of what the constitution of the United States is.

So yes. Maybe not in all things (race, hopefully physical handicaps), but in some things, it would be a factor.

Of course it would be. In a physical and emotional relationship, there has to be attraction between partners for the development of said relationship. However, once again, this is distracting from the issue of commerce and discrimination in commerce. Discrimination in partners in an emotional and physical relationship is inherently different from discrimination in commerce.

Not much of an issue in my case, but I wouldn't think so. Can't know for sure unless and until I am confronted by it. I don't think any race is less or more capable concerning mental abilities, is somehow "genetically inferior" or what not. It would have to do with a person's personality, their individual intellectual level, etc.

Then why would you believe that there would be a reason for anyone to discriminate against another based upon race? How is a persons rights being infringed upon if they are told not to discriminate against a person they have no reason to discriminate against? They are not telling you that you cannot dislike a person based upon a particular trait such as race.