It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 14
49
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by jheated5
 


Which community set up property rights?

How did the community do it to "begin with"?


Not like I have the complete history on it, I'm guessing it naturally came about.... You know, that's my side of the bed this is yours, that's your space this is mine, that's my hut and there's your cave... Over time this obviously evolved but I guess the principal is the same..




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

xDeadcowx
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Title II Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Perhaps "protected classes" was the wrong choice of words, but my point remains the same. People are protected from discrimination based on race, color, religion and national origin. These days this includes sexual orientation in most states and i predict that in the near future all states will include discrimination based on sexual orientation as a civil rights violation.

Anybody who stands for discrimination in any form is on the wrong side of history.


Like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Charles Schumer, et al?

But we allow for "reverse discrimination" right now. Even those who shout loudest against "discrimination" have no problem discriminating against those whom they think as the underserving class. Racial set asides, preferential treatment and contracts due to race, are all discriminatory, just socially acceptable racial discrimination. That's why when politicians say they must make laws to stop discrimination are a joke, because they will use selective enforcement of those laws to discriminate in favor of those who are with them.

Protected classes are exactly that. They use the excuse of "anti-discrimination" to reward those they choose and punish whom they do not. If there is a chance to abuse a system or a law, a politician will find a way to do it, which is why fewer laws in general and keeping laws at the lowest level are a good thing.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


No, no, I think you're right in real ways ... One of the aspects of property is that ownership of that property is recognized by others. The other basic aspect is that if one controls something or possesses something, they own it, when no one can "take it away."

But the RIGHT of property ... when we make the claim, as many have here to the right of property ... where does that right come from? How is it acknowledged, recorded, defended? How is it known that THIS is my property and THAT is yours, aside from our own possession?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

NavyDoc
If there is a chance to abuse a system or a law, a politician will find a way to do it, which is why fewer laws in general and keeping laws at the lowest level are a good thing.


I would counter that if there is a way to abuse a system or law that PEOPLE will do it, and the fact that some people would be stronger, faster, more able to hire thugs, etc. than others ... unless we want to live by the Jungle, then laws are required.

Protected "classes" are there because we humans have repeatedly proven that given a chance to exclude others based on differences, we'll do it. Exclusion is one of the bases of a tribe. We are tribal people.

Yes, it's natural, but in the modern ages we've decided that jungle-tribal-rule is not what we prefer as a group. Therefore, the rule of law, equitably applied to all, enforced by the will of all.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by jheated5
 


No, no, I think you're right in real ways ... One of the aspects of property is that ownership of that property is recognized by others. The other basic aspect is that if one controls something or possesses something, they own it, when no one can "take it away."

But the RIGHT of property ... when we make the claim, as many have here to the right of property ... where does that right come from? How is it acknowledged, recorded, defended? How is it known that THIS is my property and THAT is yours, aside from our own possession?


TBH I don't know.... To me there is no such thing as YOUR property since you are paying taxes and things on it. Essentially it's all government property now and you're just renting.. I'm sorry I'm totally missing the point here and I'm a little lost lol



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

jheated5

Cuervo

neo96
reply to post by Cuervo
 





The problem with that mentality is that none of these businesses are on private islands. They are supplied by roads I pay for, protected by police I pay for, and is being supported by money created by our public economy.


Not unless you happen to live in Kansas.

Besides them evil Christians also pay property taxes too.



Who aren't barred from establishments!

Gods, why can't you guys see the difference here?


Maybe because you're acting like there is no such thing as private property and the only private places in the world are islands??? Can anybody just come to your house with dirty shoes and run through the place without any consequence? Free room and board, I'll take it, what's your address??


It is private property but it is a business that granted right of access to the public.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


It's okay, it's because we all use the word "property" and assume that we know what it means. And of course, for some, it's the basis of political agendas, which makes it even more confusing.

Since you were honest, I'll tell you what I know based on my professional experience. The concept of property is usually split in two parts: real and personal. Real property is land and the improvements on that land, whether structures, crops, fruit trees, etc. Personal property is usually more mobile and is created or built ... like cars, boats, clothing, tvs, computers, jewelry, etc.

Real property (land and improvements) derives from the will of a sovereign power. That's the "old kind" of property. If a person were strong enough by the actions of their own hand to claim and defend territory, then they became that lands "sovereign."

Yes, this has to do with kings, monarchs, pashas, emperors, etc., and feudal systems of government. Subsequent to that sovereign power, there could be partitions made to other individuals. This was called an estate or fee. The land was held personally by an individual, but ultimately returned to the sovereign power.

So the question is, in the United States, what is the recognized sovereign power?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I'm all for civil rights equality but businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish. I don't agree with the reasoning that it's a religious thing because we're not a theocracy and laws shouldn't be made based on religious principals. If a business wants to refuse income from a group they don't like... that's on them.

Governments should have to accept people and grant them the same rights regardless of the persons gender, skin color, religious/sexual preferences, or anything else... but a private business? That's up to the owner of that business, just the same as it's up to a home owner to decide who they let into their home or who they want to be friends with.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I choose to believe we still have a feudal system, just different names in the hierarchy.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Much of the beginnings of the requirement to serve people comes from the Interstate Commerce laws. By refusing service it was deemed to hurt that commerce. I believe is how the federal government got so involved. Read up on and see if it doesn't tie in.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Mental Illness is a terrible thing. Just because you happen to gather enough of the deprived together to create a voting block does not change the fact that you are mentally ill. You have a problem. You are not what was intended.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

buster2010

jheated5

Cuervo

neo96
reply to post by Cuervo
 





The problem with that mentality is that none of these businesses are on private islands. They are supplied by roads I pay for, protected by police I pay for, and is being supported by money created by our public economy.


Not unless you happen to live in Kansas.

Besides them evil Christians also pay property taxes too.



Who aren't barred from establishments!

Gods, why can't you guys see the difference here?


Maybe because you're acting like there is no such thing as private property and the only private places in the world are islands??? Can anybody just come to your house with dirty shoes and run through the place without any consequence? Free room and board, I'll take it, what's your address??


It is private property but it is a business that granted right of access to the public.


The government grants right of access to the public was this right in the constitution? How can the government give access to the public do we need passes to leave your property or for others to enter yours? Never heard of this strange concept that the government decides who you can see or who you sell your property to. Or for that matter who you buy it from as well seems to me this is exactly opposite of free enterprise. See government passes laws when they do there are winners and losers government gets to decide whos rights they will infringe on and who will gain from it.Thats why people spend so much money bribing politicians so they can get a law passed that infringes others rights while protecting them. Thats whats going on the gay community its not about rights its about regulating acceptance. Each individual has the same rights but groups want rights that dont exist there is no right to marriage.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Can someone please show me where it says we have the right to discriminate.

Also, telling someone that they are a bigot, because they call out other bigots is a pathetic way of not owning your own bigotry. I am sure the people that taught you to be bigots would be turning in their graves over how today's bigots are too cowardly to be proud of their bigotry.

If you say you don't allow kissing in your establishment, fine. However, you can't allow some people to do it and cry foul when another group does it. You do not have the right to treat people like dirt!

We are all humans and deserve that respect.



P.S. - Straight male with no political or religious affiliations whatsoever, so keep your labels to yourself.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 

This discussion has been going on for a long time. And ultimately you can not change people or groups of people unless by force, so if Kansas wants to cut its business clients it can do as it pleases. Generally most people clump in groups I dont see to many gay people going for a stroll in Kansas restaurants which I think is like the religious capital of the US. I am of the general believe that you will not change people, so if a whole state does not want something, it is ultimately up to them.

And yes it is discrimination, but everything in our society although people dont like to think of it is pretty much exactly that in many ways the most of which make the least noise. I could only add that if your gay or bisexual dont live in Kansas, and that would solve most of your problems. The world is a nutty place full of nutty people, and the ones who make the biggest noise and has the most followers is generally considered right, its all just a numbers game. And history and society today has shown that to have always been the case, and still is the case. This stuff you all are arguing in this thread being the least of which. The patients are running the madhouse if you have not noticed.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Isn't this nice, with the recent research suggesting they've finally found the DNA link to homosexuality. So in a sense this is pure sadism. Its pure out and out discrimination. I don't like blonds, will deny services, or blacks, will deny services, will deny services, adoptions, even unemployment insurance, hospital care, medical. This is an intensive bill.

Its also illegal even under the old rules before gays won more rights to marry, even before those days this is unconstitutional, prejudice and literal crimes against humanity. So, I imagine its just a waste of hate on energy, done to stir the pots, and cause some misery and anger, (because that is what these satanists do, is attempt to keep you in a an angry down low frequency state and fling trauma's at people nonstop to accomplish this, from daily mishaps to bigger social issues). It will be toppled in court, pretty sure of that.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


What a sad world we live in, "good Christians" should be the last ones to judge because their book of holy rules dictates that there is but one judge. I could rant on about this one forever, sufficed I'll just say, in that good book, it states that God does not make mistakes. Since God creates man, gays are among those as is every other "so called" minority.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 




The government grants right of access to the public was this right in the constitution?


I think the poster was implying that it is because the person opened their property to serve the public. The government didn't make the decision to open to the public.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think it's time to draw up the divorce papers.
Irreconcilable differences.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

MOMof3
I don't understand how it is suppose to be enforced. So if two men or two women go out to eat at one of these businesses, who determines if they are gay or straight? Does the business owner ask outright "Who are you sleeping with tonight"? Does the owner hire Bubba as a bouncer? I can see all kinds of scenarios that could get a business owner a lawsuit.


The law itself violates the civil rights act of 1964. Just trying to use it will land a lawsuit. It has no legal bearing to stand on



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I think if you own a business you should be able to refuse service to whomever you see fit. I won't get mad if I walk into your store and you tell me that you don't serve hillbillies. I'll just come back later and burn it down(I'm kidding
) But seriously, I don't think there are any hillbillies in Kansas because the Appalachia's(where hillbillies are from) don't run through there. Kansas is the upper mid-west(corn-huskers territory). Bad as I hate to say it, bigots have the same rights as everybody else, as long as they aren't hurting anybody. I think it's a clear-cut case of rights.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Fylgje because: typos and grammar defects



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join