bs0
Active member
Then spell it out. If "control" of your personal property turns out to be controlling your private business by turning away for your private reason, sorry. Too many people did that until almost 46 years ago.
You didn't listen one bit whatsoever.
You continue to tell me that if I want control of my property I'm a bigot. You can keep repeating it but it is not true. .. Nope still not true this time. You are making a failed assumption. And you continue to do so. You believing that my motivations are solely rooted in one direction makes you ignorant.
Suit yourself. But the law assumes, I just point it out. I think you disagree with part of it.
What the hell are you talking about? I think you are judging my beliefs on your own assumed moral compass. I'm thinking that Paul didn't respond for this reason: you don't even listen to what is said, your assumption is rooted in some sort of permanent ideology of ....
I have no idea what. No law 'assumes'. None. Laws are black and white (pun FULLY INTENDED)
So how is a legal restriction a legal activity? It's only legal outside your legal restriction. Smokers and non-smokers alike have groups lobbying for their right to smoke or not. Non-smokers won.
No, non-smokers didn't win. Personal rights lost. People, you particularly, have got to understand that their rights aren't contingent upon agreeing with their fellow man. If I want to eat chicken every fucking day then damn well I will regardless of you approving or not.
It's not 'smokers vs. non-smokers', it's a person's right to do a legal activity in a private venue or not. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal.
Smoking tobacco is legal.
Do you get it yet?
Telling people that they can not smoke tobacco in their private property is telling them that they can't do something legal on their private property.
Let that one stew for a minute.
Allow your mind the ability to see the fact there's nothing pure about racial discrimination. Allow your mind the ability to see your own position isn't transparent enough to "control" others if that control exercises them from your private business.
You are responding to something I never said. I said my desire to control my own property is pure. You then ASSUMED AGAIN THAT I WAS SAYING I WANT NO BLACKS ON MY LAND. Your brain really is stuck on repeat?
What I said was, "Allow your mind the ability to see that his position is not inherently evil, that he possibly does see it in the pure sense I do: we deserve to control our own bodies and own property. " You have denied your mind that ability. Your assumptions take full control of everything that you say. You never even read what I typed if that was your response. You deemed that people who are proponents of individual rights are inherently bigots. This is the exact reason that I brought up the Patriot Act. Opposing the Patriot Act does not make you a terrorist. Do you get it? It's not a tremendous mental leap to understand that very simple correlation.
I only agree the CRA should not be repealed. I don't agree with your "feral southern" idea. Repeal would affect more than the south and I don't think private business owners would collectively respond the way you think they would
It's a fact some private business owners would disagree with you. Being a private business owner doesn't give you a leg up on prophecy. Two centuries of racial strife as a nation trumps any idea your brethren will respond collectively.
Okay. You can have it. You just told me that I have no right to issue prophecies about society and then lay out LIKE 14 DIFFERENT PROPHECYS.
You have the sole ability to have an opinion of what the social response would be to the fictional repeal of the CRA.
If you don't like the government telling you what to do, contact your representative.
Oh for the love of god (yours, your neighbors, I don't care), NO I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY OWN PROPERTY OR MY OWN BODY. NO I DO NOT WANT THEM TELLING ME WHAT I CAN EAT OR DRINK OR WHAT I CAN DO IN MY OWN HOME.
NO I DO NOT WANT MY GOVERNMENT LEGISLATING MORALS TO ME. If this is what you want then good for you.
And for the record, you COMPLETELY IGNORED my point about Arizona. The only relative example either of us can draw upon. You ignored it completely. There was no prognostication there. When one of the 50 states tried to implement a racist law they were STRUCK DOWN.
You can have your nanny government that you seem to want. Like I said previously I'm a Libertarian.
If you have something to say that isn't just completely assuming my standpoint then I'd welcome the discourse. But all you have done is repeat your dogma and attempt to label me a racist. For the record, the reason that I wanted to know who the racists were was so I could throw eggs at them. You .. disagree?
Last edited: