Started By
Message
re: Is Mississippi the Hate State?
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:02 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:02 pm to Kentucker
quote:
o one should have a right to dictate to the public marketplace. If you're offering a service, you offer it to everyone. If you're selling something, you offer it to everyone. This is the way it has always been and it has worked well. You either deal with every customer or you don't deal.
COMPLETE AND UTTER bullshite POST RIGHT HERE.
No, business owners should not have to bow down to everyone.
They should not be made to serve absolutely everyone. It's suppose to be a free country. That means everyone should be free to serve who they wish.
1
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:13 pm to bbvdd
jesus christ
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:13 pm to cas4t
quote:
And my argument is that civil and human rights take precedent when a specific group is being discriminated against.
i hear that. please don't read that i'm ok with discrimination in any way, shape, or form. i just think at the end of the day, freedom of speech extends to business practice.
quote:
Please link me to where you've read it as such and provide context?
i take it in that the original intent of the bill of rights that government should do as little as possible to infringe on the free will or speech of people. my interpretation.
quote:
You are saying we should allow the free market to fix bigotry, which never has happened in the history of mankind.
has government fixed bigotry?
ETA: maybe a bit of clarification. you are very clearly arguing what the law says. ( i'm not disagreeing with you. your links to CR is spot on for the discussion and where this is headed when it gets contested to the SCOTUS.) i'm arguing what the law should be.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:21 pm to cas4t
quote:
think about what you just said. Are you black? Can you possibly imagine walking into a restaurant with your significant other, being called a n*gger and told to get the frick out?
I am not black. However I find it hard to believe you are ok with spending your money with someone who hates you. Would you not rather know that the business who hates you because you are black? Damn there are a lot of places you can shop, why not shop where you are appreciated. If enough people did that then the racist guy would go out of business.
quote:
You just compared rude fast food workers to racism.
My comment was made to say that when I order at a fast food resturant and am waited on by a black person, and I receive poor service, I dont feel that the black person is being racist towards me because I am white. It is because they are a lazy dipwad who will probably never have a better job, because of their attitude.
quote:
quote:
I dont think it is because I am white, I think it because the employee is a lazy shithead
You answered your own question. They are inherently different.
Do you think that a black person can be racist? Or is that reserved for white people?
I am sorry that you and many other black people have to deal with this. I think things are better than they were 50 years ago and hopefully someday it will be a thing of the past. But probably not, because the world is full of assholes and no matter how many good white people there are, there will always be a few bad ones. And then the good ones get overlooked and the bad ones are the only ones that are relevant.
I am not looking to get into a tread war with you. So I will leave this alone now. My main point is this law would allow people to know if someone does not want their business, and shop accordingly.
Good luck to you cas4t. Hope you have a good day.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:24 pm to 3nOut
quote:
has government fixed bigotry?
Of course not, but black people can now eat, drink and shop where they please. I don't expect the government to shape people's train of thought, but I do expect them to govern appropriately.
quote:
freedom of speech extends to business practice.
freedom of speech isn't being discussed. This is about businesses in Mississippi being allowed to turn away customers.
But while we are discussing freedom of speech...there are numerous restrictions and exclusions to the 1st amendment. It is not an all encompassing amendment, and rightfully so. Do you think business should be allowed to post sexual obscenities of children in their lobby? Of course you don't, but technically, that's freedom of speech. But it is excluded.
Slander is excluded, and rightfully so. Inciting danger, etc.
This is no different. We have freedom of speech, but this isn't the wild west.
I know I've come across as combative but I know you're not a bigot or okay with discrimination. I just think we fundamentally disagree on a few things.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:29 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
However I find it hard to believe you are ok with spending your money with someone who hates you
The point is you want to be treated the same as everyone else. You don't have to like me, just bake my fricking cake and let me pay for it.
quote:
Would you not rather know that the business who hates you because you are black? Damn there are a lot of places you can shop, why not shop where you are appreciated. If enough people did that then the racist guy would go out of business.
Of course, but that's besides the point. Laws should not be dictated on "well, they can go shop somewhere else!!"
quote:
My comment was made to say that when I order at a fast food resturant and am waited on by a black person, and I receive poor service, I dont feel that the black person is being racist towards me because I am white. It is because they are a lazy dipwad who will probably never have a better job, because of their attitude.
I understood that. My point was that your example was not a fair comparison to what is being discussed. It's not even the same concept.
quote:
Do you think that a black person can be racist? Or is that reserved for white people?
of course they can and I know plenty myself. I fail to see your point. I do see your point about how the customer should know if the business owner they are attempting to deal with is an a-hole, but in my experience, word of mouth does a pretty good job of that.
Also, I'm not black.
I hope you have a good day as well. This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:31 pm to wmr
I think the wording of this bill will eventually end up undermining the demographic it aims to protect.
And I say that as a conservative. Mostly, I think it's pretty unnecessary.
And I say that as a conservative. Mostly, I think it's pretty unnecessary.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:33 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I think the wording of this bill will eventually end up undermining the demographic it aims to protect.
I'd bet my life savings on it
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:38 pm to cas4t
quote:
I know I've come across as combative but I know you're not a bigot or okay with discrimination. I just think we fundamentally disagree on a few things.
agreed.
maybe i just see that the more laws passed that make somebody do something in any way shape or form as a little bit of freedom that we have taken away from ourselves. that's probably the libertarian christian in me speaking.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:39 pm to cas4t
quote:
I just think we fundamentally disagree on a few things.
I would agree to that. However, I just cannot understand how a person can want a government to take care of things for them. If someone would like to try to explain it to me, then I am more than open to discussion. I just cannot wrap my mind on why someone would want government getting into social issues, period.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:40 pm to TbirdSpur2010
The Mississippi law is unconstitutional. All of the arguments posters are making in this thread are the same arguments that were made 50 years ago when segregation ended. Like it or not gay marriage is the law of the land and using some religious based criteria to effect discrimination is wrong.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:46 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
All of the arguments posters are making in this thread are the same arguments that were made 50 years ago when segregation ended.
No, it's not. It's not the same at all.
quote:
using some religious based criteria to effect discrimination is wrong.
It's not about religion to me. It is about people being able to do whatever the frick they want to do.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:46 pm to DynastyDawg
quote:
I just cannot understand how a person can want a government to take care of things for them.
What? We are discussing discrimination. What exactly do you think gay people should to fix this on their own?
quote:
I just cannot wrap my mind on why someone would want government getting into social issues, period.
I have a feeling this is going to be a bit like banging my head against the wall, but let's give it a go.
First of all, this isn't a social issue, it's a civil one. Secondly, we still wouldn't allow blacks to eat in the same restaurants as whites if it weren't for the government getting involved. I have to ask, as I did earlier with 3nout, do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got it wrong?
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:48 pm to DynastyDawg
I don't want black people in my restaurant. I don't want to serve them.
Is that ok by you?
Is that ok by you?
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:48 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
the same arguments that were made 50 years ago when segregation ended
yah! let's go ahead and call errybody racists!!!
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:48 pm to DynastyDawg
quote:
No, it's not. It's not the same at all.
explain how they are different.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:49 pm to 3nOut
quote:
yah! let's go ahead and call errybody racists!!!
he's not wrong. This is the exact same argument. If you think you can convince me otherwise, give it a whirl.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:50 pm to cas4t
quote:
We are discussing discrimination. What exactly do you think gay people should to fix this on their own?
Go to places that accept their business. This is not like segregation. All straight people aren't telling homosexuals, "you can't eat here". They are quite in the minority of people actually. If they choose to do so, that is their right. It is our right to choose to do business with them or not.
quote:
First of all, this isn't a social issue, it's a civil one.
One that started with a social issue. It doesn't matter what you call it, or if you agree with it.
quote:
Secondly, we still wouldn't allow blacks to eat in the same restaurants as whites if it weren't for the government getting involved.
Segregation is not what is happening with this law. I do not understand how people fail to realize that. As referenced above.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:52 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
I don't want black people in my restaurant. I don't want to serve them.
Is that ok by you?
Yes, it would be, because it should be their right as a business owner. And I wouldn't be dining in that restaurant as a white person, along with a large number of other white people.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:53 pm to cas4t
quote:
he's not wrong. This is the exact same argument. If you think you can convince me otherwise, give it a whirl.
i wasn't around to hear the other side's argument. i just get what the history books tell me, right or wrong, accurate or not.
i would like to hear the pro-discrimination's side and see if was just rooted in flat-out racism, or there was any logical discussion to it.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News