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: 20
49
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

beezzer

My wife was unable to shop at the stores that didn't carry Halal foods. They discriminated before she even set foot into the stores.


That's not discrimination in any reasonable definition of the word.



Stores should be free to carry what they want to carry.


And they are.



It's entirely up to them if they want to exclude a segment of the population.



No, it's not. If they offer services to the public, then they have to service the public. If they want to pick and choose who they serve, they should form a private club.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


...which is why we should not legislate based on who takes offense because we always see how those laws are not impartially enforced on various groups depending upon how the pendulum swings.

Natch :-)

I am pleased to report that the Republican-led Kansas Senate decided this would not fly. Senate President Susan Wagle said on Thursday that a majority of the state senators in her party would not vote for the bill. They support “traditional marriage,” Wagle noted, “however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.” Thank you for that line in the sand. It should be obvious, but somehow that was lost on the Kansas House.

And it looks like the Senate in Kansas agrees with you - good call

Tough break for the House, but, they gave it the old college try - embarrassing their state and our country in the process

But - come to think of it - it's a process most beautiful. I had doubts - but my faith has been restored. For now

Any thoughts on society Navy? I'm curious to see how a rugged individualist works all this out in his head

:-)


Society is a group of people who live in proximity to one another. There a free societies, totalitarian societies, fascist societies, and dictatorial societies. So you might have to get a bit more exact.

IMHO, societies work best and provide freedom for all (or the most) if people work together for their own benefit and those of others without coercion.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 





Maybe your empathy is reserved only for the groups you agree with. Mmmm


As opposed to the total lack of empathy being displayed by the LGBT in this thread? lol . . . it just blows my mind that anyone would consider themselves enlightened and believe that destroying someone's business, the way they put a roof over their head and feed their children, because they won't bake a cake on religious grounds is "right"

It's ludicrous.



I have to be honest and tell you that I have no idea of what you are talking about.

Destroying businesses? Cake? Are you serious?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


The link to the story about a baker and a photographer that refused to service a gay wedding on religious grounds and are being punished by the courts for not doing so was posted earlier. In all likelihood the Kansas Bill was in response to that, as was also pointed out earlier in the thread.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

dragonridr

Jim crow laws survived as long as they did because democrats like Woodrow Wilson who started segregation. Democrats didnt want blacks to vote and started setting up restrictions they were afraid the black vote would make the south to powerful. in elections. To keep the southern vote low they set restrictions in place for even literacy requirements which kept whites from voting as well. It got so bad in the south many white voters stopped even attempting to vote. Theres always more to the story especially when dealing with politicians.


Segregation started in the South in the 1870s. Wilson did not "start" segregation. Two of his Cabinet Secretaries (both Southerners) tried to impose segregation in some Federal offices for a time. He backed off after tangling with the NAACP. \

F. D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, ended all employment segregation in the Federal government.

Maybe spend some more time with Wikipedia?

Be honest, you know that the efforts to keep Blacks from voting was concentrated almost entirely in the South. The political party was incidental. Why do I say that?

All of those State now vote Republican, and incidentally, new cries of "States Rights" are now common in WHICH political party?

Yeah.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


The link to the story about a baker and a photographer that refused to service a gay wedding on religious grounds and are being punished by the courts for not doing so was posted earlier. In all likelihood the Kansas Bill was in response to that, as was also pointed out earlier in the thread.


The Kansas bill was a half-headed attempt to create a group of second-class citizens in this country. Thankfully the Kansas Senate has a bit intellect left.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

muse7
It's really common sense.

States and Countries that choose Conservative politics will, by definition NOT move forward.


So, what's your definition of moving forward? I think it's safe to say people have a different idea of moving forward.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc
Which shows how ignorant you are of the Constitution you pretend to support. Jim Crow, "separate but equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court and they did say it was Constitutional (before a later court made another decision.) Jim Crow, at one point WAS considered Constitutional and thus was "the law of the land."


Yes, and that flawed decision allowed for 58 more years of discrimination against African Americans. Is that what you're arguing for? Yes, I guess it is. The idea of "separate but equal" depended on the idea that owners of restaurants, trains, inns, theatres had the right to do as they wished on their property ... sound familiar to you?

Plessey was also a "limit the power of government" argument as well, by the way ... did you read it or just post a list from Wikipedia? Talk about contradictions; are you for discrimination, or not? You seem to go back and forth as your argument needs it.



Thus I have demonstrated that slavery WAS Constitutional and the law of the land. Jim Crow was Constitutional and the law of the land ... etc. etc.


Slavery had been outlawed in over half of the United States by 1790. Jim Crow only survived in the South because of arguments that the Federal Government should not overstep its boundaries. SOUND FAMILIAR?

Both have been repudiated by ... watch this ... the fact that eventually, the rights of the individual were brought into balance with the will of the People ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. Slavery, obviously, was not a balanced situation, and neither was "Jim Crow" but sadly for YOUR argument, what there is of it, both conditions prevailed because of the idea that "property is sacred:"

Dred Scott was denied his citizenship because he was declared to be PROPERTY.

Jim Crow survived for far too long because of backward ideas about the sanctity of PROPERTY and STATES RIGHTS.

You can make all the noise you want about standing by the Constitution.

All you are really arguing for is the very same ideas that allowed for slavery, Jim Crow and the rest ...
edit on 17Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:57:16 -060014p052014266 by Gryphon66 because: silly formatting.


So by yes, you agreed with (or at least would have if you were alive back then) Jim Crow and slavery since they were the law of the land and the will of the majority?

Slaves were legally property, by the law of the land and the majority, so by your position, it appears that you would have agreed with that.

Jim Crow was about the majority wanting to use the law of the land to keep the minority under control, much like you want to do. It wasn't about property at all. Black men could own property in Jim Crow south, they just were prevented from participating in the political process. It was not about property, it was about using the law to control your fellow citizens, much as you wish to do. You support backward ideas of "fairness" and have a complete misunderstanding what "rights" actually are. "States rights" is a misnomer because the Constitution does not mention "states rights" at all. It delegates the duties of the federal government and explicitly states that those duties not given the federal government or forbidden to the states is the purview of the states. That is the law of the land. Unless you can show me which article where it states that the federal government is to dictate whom you shall or shall not do commerce with, then the Constitutional argument for it is flawed--just as flawed as you stated correctly that the "separate but equal" decision was flawed.

The Constitution says nothing about the federal government (or any government for that matter) dictating who you choose to do commerce with but it does have quite a bit to say about private property.

You say you want everyone to be equal under the law, yes? Then you would agree that discrimination based on racial preferences, racial quotas for hiring, "race norming" applications, and preferential treatment for contractor hiring is also against the supreme law of the land and just an abomination in your eyes as the hypothetical bakery shop refusing to serve the hypothetical minority or gay customer?

The federal government definitely discriminates due to race:



Minority-Owned Businesses
SBA’s 8(a) Business Development program can help qualifying minority-owned firms develop and grow their businesses through one-to-one counseling, training workshops, and management and technical guidance. The program also provides access to government contracting opportunities, allowing these businesses to become solid competitors in the federal marketplace






the federal government has a requirement that a minimum of 23% of total acquisition dollars (estimated at the trillions of dollars) are ‘set aside’ and must be spent with diverse businesses. To help reach this 23% goal, the federal government has special stipulations in place that help certified MBEs compete for contracts with the federal government.




Are you for "affirmative action?"



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





The Kansas bill was a half-headed attempt to create a group of second-class citizens in this country. Thankfully the Kansas Senate has a bit intellect left.


Just to be clear here, it's not that you object to creating a group of second-class citizens, it's just that you think it should be religious people? If my memory is correct, you've expressed your hatred towards "religion" or "religious people," I can't recall exactly which, in a past thread so please pardon me for asking for clarification.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Okay. Thanks.

It appears they started a business for public use and then wanted to choose which segment of the public they would serve.

Not in America! We have already been down that road and should have learned from our mistakes.

They say they believe in God...who supposedly created Everyone...not just us straight people. Yet they discriminate against a group who could very well be Christians also.

Does that make sense to you? What groups would we exclude next? Is that your idea of freedom?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I never understood why gays want to monetarily support a business and persons who don't like them and don't want them. If someone told me they hated me, I wouldn't support his place of business. But, Im a man.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Those that use Christianity as such a reason as to turn others away are not very Christian.
It is more likely they are just bigots.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by slunteri
 


You don't have to be gay to see the bigger picture. It is like a domino effect. What group comes next if this behavior is condoned?

How far does this have to go for you to cry foul?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




The Constitution says nothing about the federal government (or any government for that matter) dictating who you choose to do commerce with but it does have quite a bit to say about private property.


It very plainly states:

Section 8: Powers of Congress Enumerated

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Section Eight:

...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


wikipedia



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


I wont cry foul bc I don't cry, I make things better. Try it out. I will never support someone that hates me and I will never fight to be able to go somewhere that doesn't want me. Damn, just stop whining. It's unbearable.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 





It appears they started a business for public use and then wanted to choose which segment of the public they would serve.


If you can't see the violence and hatefulness involved in forcing someone out of business because they won't service a gay wedding because they believe that homosexual marriage is immoral, then I don't know what to say.

It's a level of hate and violence that I could never bring myself to aim at a homosexual person.

And before it's brought up, no, refusing to service a gay wedding on religious grounds doesn't necessarily involve any hatred or animus, closing down someone's business does.

But there isn't any point in discussing it with people that either can't see or won't acknowledge these things.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Brother, the only hate I see is that coming from those God fearing Christians.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

slunteri
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


I wont cry foul bc I don't cry, I make things better. Try it out. I will never support someone that hates me and I will never fight to be able to go somewhere that doesn't want me. Damn, just stop whining. It's unbearable.



Don't get so emotional, sport. This is an internet discussion not the end of the world.

I get it though. If someone mistreated you, you would just walk away....which could be interpreted as either turning the other cheek or just being a coward.

Only you know the answer.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




The Constitution says nothing about the federal government (or any government for that matter) dictating who you choose to do commerce with but it does have quite a bit to say about private property.


It very plainly states:

Section 8: Powers of Congress Enumerated

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Section Eight:

...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


wikipedia


And baking a cake or owning a restaurant is "commerce among the several states" how?

The commerce clause was not carte Blanche to tell you how to run your business, no matter how much statists want it to be.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Brother, the only hate I see is that coming from those God fearing Christians.



I'm curious. If a caterer did not want to cater an NRA fundraising gala because he was morally opposed to supporting the gun lobby, should the state force him to cater the NRA fundraising gala?




top topics



 
49
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join