I was referring to the guy in the video.


Like the guy in the video.


This is like saying anyone who hated Hitler was being intolerant of his opinion.

We are SUPPOSED to be intolerant of backwards thinking.


I haven't called you a racist. What i have said is that the opinion that this guy is doing nothing wrong... is WRONG and everyone knows it. Anyone who doesn't get that has a skewed sense of right and wrong.

It's like the guy who says hes not racist... so long as his daughter doesn't bring home a black guy. The guy in the video is the stereotypical right wing redneck. "No liberals, no muslims" Wtf? Anyone remember Timothy McVeigh? he wasn't a liberal or a muslim.

Pretty much.

Although, on a serious answer, I do have issues with the idea of trying to legislate thinking, which is what this is really about. Some times we seem to forget that the constitution protects the right to hate too

Thats what Hitler kept telling them!

But when hate leaves someones thoughts and starts spewing out into the world where the rest of us live we have to stand up against it and send it back where it came from.

No, thinking is not the issue. Actual discrimination in practice by a business serving the public is the issue, and it looks like it's against the law.

I'm glad we can all agree he's a racist bigot. You guys had me worried!

It still leaves several question unanswered.

Why would anyone want to do business with someone that doesn't want their business?

Why does one persons rights trump anothers?

I didn't bother watching the video, or reading the whole article, but yes he is a racist bigot. But I still super his right to be an ignorant fool. taking away his right actually fits more with hitler's ideas of trying to force people to think as they are told. I think ending bigotry and racism through education is a better solution than with legislation. While legislation keeping government agencies and programs from discriminating is an obvious need, I don't think we should try to legislate how people run their businesses. At least not small businesses.

Stamp, that is a stupid reply. Especially since hitler did use legislation and government propaganda to influence the public's thinking. So, thanks for ultimately backing up my point

It's a perfect reply. What everyone loves to forget is that Hitler didn't just take power one day. He started by spewing his racist garbage all around Germany. Those who knew he was wrong kept their mouth shut and one by one the morons joined him in his quest to eliminate entire races from the face of the earth.

Well... i won't keep my head down while morons spew hatred from their mouths. He can get his own country if he wants to play ethnic cleansing dictator.

Thanks for backing up my point.

They won't be doing business with him and it wont be his decision. His mouth eliminated those customers. Which is obviously fine with him.


No one in the United States has the right to deny service to entire sexes/races/religions so this question isn't relevant.

Why isn't it their right to run their business the way they desire? Isn't that against their freedom?

The Civil Rights Act is why.

You are allowed to pursue freedom in any way you see fit so long as it doesn't affect the pursuit of freedom for anyone else.

So YES its okay to be a redneck racist. But NO its not okay to practice that religion? on other citizens of the United States.

That is why i keep saying he should get his own country. One where he can do whatever he wants... until the other citizens rise up against him anyway... Dictators are not faring so well these days.

I just wanted to summarize a few things I read on here and add a couple of my own observations-

I haven't seen anyone on here who appears to be a racist. The argument is more to free speech whether or not you agree with someone.

However, a person's Freedom of Speech is routinely misapplied, both here and in popular conversation. This is actually what the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first part says that the government can't raise one religion over any other, which gives rise to the separation of church and state. Next, it says that it can't prohibit the practice of religion, though further case law says that it can if there is a compelling interest.

The second part says that the government can't abridge the freedom of speech. However, this has been taken by courts to mean that the government can't keep people from speaking against it.

The Freedom of Speech ammendment does NOT give someone the right to say whatever they want!

There are many laws that do prohibit saying whatever you want, and they have been upheld by the courts. Some examples are libel, slander, assault, and yes, racist comments.

The guy in the video is a racist and is violating the Civil Rights Act and should be held accountable.

A bigot is anybody who doesn't agree with me :)

CJ

And how do you not fit into this webster definition? I dont get your reply, albeit constant and steady, it still doesnt apply.



Its a question. YOU took it as an insult. I cannot help how you interpret questions.


I am familiar with "classical liberalism". That has nothing to do with TODAYS liberals. Why make the comparison? There is no comparison. Makes no sense. This is your common method of attack, throw meaningless things out there and hope no one gets it? You post this to make it appear that classical liberalism is the same as todays liberalism? Assuming we are all stupid and dont know the difference? I would stray from posting like this as it makes you become more transparent and less credible. Call me a classical liberal and I would say thank you and dont you wish it was the same as todays liberals? I would have respected you more.



The larger issue is you are stuck on your own beliefs and are more narrow minded than you try to lead us into believing. I dont hate you though. :)


You can label the belief of choosing how to conduct business however you want. Are you stating if someone turned away business because the customer was liberal is against the law? What law states I MUST do business with everyone that walks in my door? I dont mean because someonse religion or color. What law protects me from saying NO to someone I dont trust? Is that against the law? What law? While you are literate and have a way with words, you also have a way of twisting comments to tailor others to your belief. Against the law? certainly not, more power to you. Doesnt always work, though.


I sounds like you know it came from Ed? Otherwise, why would you make the comment? Ed who?

WOW, I finally figured out how to break out replies properly, well, for the most part, lol. A first.

Again, I have no hatred towards you or others here. Just healthy debate and encouragement. I would hate to only be around rednecks (although they vary as much as any other group), or whites, or blacks, or muslims or whatever. Diversity is not a bad word or bad thing. What is bad is when one group tries to make that group the ONLY group.

Hmmm, can you point out the posts from all those redneck racists? I missed those. What is your definition of a redneck? Are all rednecks racists?

You have led me, and likely others that you take issue with rednecks and you are indeed a racist of rednecks yourself. Do you concur?

Because you parse the definition to sorta kinda help make it mean what you want to mean. The problem is the by separating the definition as you have you can then apply it to practically everybody. It's the second and third parts of the definition that make the clarification. That is where you fit in with your obvious negative opinion of liberals.


I see. You're just asking questions. Not actually saying it, just asking. Somewhat like 'have you quit beating your wife,' except instead of violence it's 'brainwashing.' Stay classy!


Uh, I was just talking about liberalism. I figured you figured I was some liberal, but I pointed how the term liberal has roots in today's conservative beliefs... you don't understand how I voted GOP but you seem to think I'm a liberal... but hey, that message was not understood. Maybe I was not clear enough. It was not an attack. I thought it might be something 'safe' to redirect to. Geebus.


Actually the larger issue isn't my beliefs but Civil Righs Law as it applies to some little whole in the wall gun training facility down in Texas and why you (or others) would support it. Feel free to get back on track and clarify why you support it. So far I've seen lots of beliefs stated but not the because. I'm glad you don't hate me, I don't hate you (wry smile). But how about we talk about your beliefs now? It's pretty clear you think I'm a bigoted liberal and you support this guy or are against this law, OK got it we can move on now.


I prefer to label it discrimination because it's a pretty clear definition of what is happening. The issue is the legality of the specific discrimination. I cannot be sure that being turned away from services provided for 'being liberal' is illegal or worth a case. However, it is much different to deny Muslims and non-Christian Arabs a service that you advertise on public radio. I'm not sure it would be illegal to discriminate against somebody who voted for Obama, but somebody may some day try it. So it seems you like you think it's OK to discriminate on all the specific terms because I thought you supported this guy fully. Do you agree that discriminating against all those parties/for those reasons is OK? 

The law is not 'you have to do business with everyone who walks in your door.' The law is that you cannot discriminate for specific reasons and/or in certain circumstances. That is a clear and very important distinction. Here we have a situation where a business is engaging in advertising that they will discriminate for those specifically illegal reasons/circumstances as stated in the Civil Rights Act (actually one guy in this thread thinks it's not illegal, I believe it is). We have a few people in this thread who support this guy in some way shape or form.


I was making a joke about Ed. Ed has been here a long time with conspiratorial leanings and I assumed you'd know who I was talking about. He made a comment about 'thoughts' similar to yours. My bad, I thought it was funny.