(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"However we still give up certain freedoms like we can't kill people, commit violence against people, defraud people, expose children to what we consider inappropriate behavior or media, drive anywhere we please, etc."

Of course, though like most libertarians, I would suggest a clearer line exists that defines that line and what it becomes once you cross from one side to another. But then we're getting into discussions over positive and negative rights, and which are inalienable or not. That's almost a discussion in its own right, and one that has been had all to often already.

"You know for a fact that if it was not the case, entire towns in the south would close up for black people."

I'm not so certain of this, at least nothing resembling what the south had been in the 60's. I keep thinking of how those who passed Jim Crow laws felt the need to write them, apparently to keep anyone from drifting 'off the segregation reservation'. And if that's the case, then perhaps the cracks were already showing in the system and that it was only a matter of time as it was. Provided the 14th amendment is maintained for the civil (government) structures, where violence and intimidation is prosecuted evenly, then like water, change in private institutions is almost impossible to stop, unless in some rather extraordinary circumstances.

"While we still have a very big race problem in the US, I do not see taking the right to discriminate purely on racial basis as something that is going to severely harm people, on the other hand, it does in a small way help with equality of access to services."

Well that depends. I would consider it a loss not to have to hear from such 'distinguished' business owners like the one in the video in the OP to add to my mental database of places not to patronize. In fact, as I mentioned below, if a business owner was anti-Catholic, I'd rather he be able to advertise his ignorance before I wander into his establishment rather than have the obvious markers covered up by law and have the prejudice take a more surreptitious form during the course of my patronage.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I would suggest a clearer line exists that defines that line and what it becomes once you cross from one side to another.

How so? Its always under negotiation and moves back and fourth. What one generation thinks is more harmful than removing the freedom to do it may not be what the next generation thinks. It always changes.

I'd rather he be able to advertise his ignorance before I wander into his establishment rather than have the obvious markers covered up by law and have the prejudice take a more surreptitious form during the course of my patronage.

While I agree with that, the issue here is the lack of power in the situation that the black people in that location have. They really don't have proper recourse. Selective discrimination being authorized makes it easy to expand it as a social belief too.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"How so? Its always under negotiation and moves back and fourth. What one generation thinks is more harmful than removing the freedom to do it may not be what the next generation thinks. It always changes."

To paraphrase a probably too-blunt libertarian saying, my right to throw a punch ends where someone else's face begins.

"While I agree with that, the issue here is the lack of power in the situation that the black people in that location have. They really don't have proper recourse. Selective discrimination being authorized makes it easy to expand it as a social belief too."

Once upon a time, perhaps, but communications and travel have pretty much broken down the conditions that could have sustained those beliefs. I look to where I have family members in GA. When they moved there, the "good ol' boys" system was well in place, not so much in regards to race, but in terms of nepotism and the like. Flash forward ten years, and the influx of out-of-staters and surge in growth was well beyond anything that the stunted, top-down control-minded locals could stop. Change came and now you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between that town and several of the ones around where I lived in NJ a long time ago.

The town I live in is in the midst of their own crossroads.

Sure, there will always probably be examples one can point to as a sign of the old ways asserting themselves, but a lot of the variables that once enabled them no longer can sustain them except as oddities.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the laws never mentioned race outright. It was vagrancy laws, disfranchisement by theoretically neutral concepts such as poll taxes and literacy tests, things that were always on paper applied to all races, in practice applied solely to those defined as black under the law. As the real Jim Crow violated two constitutional amendments and was a Thermidorian reaction to the US Civil War, they were very careful not to risk trying Black Codes again.