This is another terrible comparison. Picking up hitchhikers isn't your business unless you're a cab driver or bus driver. And if you refused to pick up Rosa Parks while driving a cab, well... you'd be like many cab drivers but it would still be illegal.
Elaborate
Cuz white folks be trippin
Who's forced to perform abortions? On the other end, you would have the government force a women to carry her pregnancy to term.
How is this aligned with liberal philosophy?There's the whole surveillance state/war on terror thing.
I didn't know Rick Scott was a liberal. How is drug testing welfare recipients aligned with liberal philosophy?Drug testing welfare applicants is another example.
1. "Keep your laws off women's bodies"
2. Liberals loved the PATRIOT Act and what happened in Guantanemo Bay, you're right.
3. Opposition to drug testing
I misread your post as proof of instances liberals were okay with government intrusion, since your first post was sarcastic.
Business owners are still PRIVATE individuals. Especially small businesses. I refuse to work for Toyota because their maintenance guys are pricks, but that doesn't mean Toyota should be able to sue me because as a Japanese company they should be a protected class.
This isn't a great analogy because, in the case of racial segregation, there is no competing (religious) right that justified discrimination. Racial discrimination didn't/doesn't have the nuance of being religiously justified. Without the opposition of one's religious beliefs, resolving racial discrimination was pretty straightforward, legally speaking.
When it comes to teh gays, things are more complicated because of the religious opposition. You might (and probably do) think that religious opposition is just a fancy way of dressing up discrimination. And there may be some truth to that. But there's also some truth to the guy who just wants to practice his religious beliefs.
Law's like the CADA are ty because they don't strike a balance between these competing rights. And this analogy doesn't exactly work either because it similarly is missing that balancing between rights.
But again, this is exactly what Nono said it was: a test case for CADA.
There would be no issue if this guy simply refused to serve the s and didn't say anything about his religious beliefs.
Only some attention who emphasizes his refusal is religiously based would get in trouble. If he just simply refused, he'd probably be fine.
You are discriminating based on business reasons, not racial/sexual/demographic. That's not illegal, nor should it be.
I'll put this in dumb speak: don't know, don't care, it's irrelevant.
Can't dumb it down for you any further, dumb .
Racial discrimination USED to absolutely be religiously justified. It was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court had to step in to rule that states couldn't ban interracial marriage. Interracial sex was a felony a hundred years ago. Defenders of these laws in both cases used God to justify the cause.
What if someone lived in Palestine and drove a BMW but the one car shop in town didn't know how to fix BMWs? The owner has to figure out something else.
you got any links for that homeslice? I wasn't aware there was a religious component to Loving
religious rights take a backseat if they infringe on someone else's human rights, dumb .
so your analogy is really much of one then. cool.
Well, who judges intent and what is to keep them from suing me claiming it was for racial discrimination?
No one is born a BMW owner. When you choose to purchase a BMW you do so with the understanding that there may be fewer options for you to get repairs.
according to our local fedora-donning neck bearded white knighter, Blake, sure. too bad what you want and what is reality are very diff things.
Unless you ever stated specifically that you won't do business with Japanese suppliers, there's nothing they can do about it.
The law can't fix everything, but intent is clear when a bakery owner says "I won't serve gays."
Getting cucked permanently scarred him.
When you buy a car, you do so knowing that it may break down in an inconvenient place.
That's exactly why these laws are so stupid.
You can discriminate on religious grounds. It'd have to be done by simply telling the s "no." That scenario that avoids the intent of the law (ending discrimination) and the only way to deal with it, like you said, is to start examining each and every refusal for discriminatory intent.
In this written judgment, dated January 22, 1965, Leon M. Bazile, judge of the Caroline County Circuit Court, refuses a motion on behalf of Richard and Mildred Loving to vacatetheir 1959 conviction for violating the state law that forbids interracial marriage. The Lovings eventually appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor in 1967.
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/opinion_of_judge_leon_m_bazile_january_22_1965
Last edited by Spurminator; 08-14-2015 at 02:14 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
