(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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So what he's saying, quite literally, is the 14th Amendment
and civil-rights legislation are meaningless.

The 14th amendment is about public services, about the government. In this case, yes, it's meaningless.

In terms of civil rights legislation, there's absolutely a reasonable argument out there that the CRAs are inappropriate, if not completely unconstitutional, intrusions on private exchanges.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Of course **someone** my argue it's "Unconstitutional" to prevent someone from acting Unconstitutionally towards someone else...

but then again, those are the same types of people who argue the earth is flat, and at the center of the universe.


Also, 14th amendment is not just about public services or just the government -- as the tons of legislation that has come out in terms of civil rights, hate-crime legislation, and sexual harassmnt laws have been backed, in part, from the 14th amendment.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course **someone** my argue it's "Unconstitutional" to prevent someone from acting Unconstitutionally towards someone else...

Seeing as the Constitution limits the government...

Or are you going to tell me that I, as an individual, can violate your first amendment rights?

Also, 14th amendment is not just about public services or just the government -- as the tons of legislation that has come out in terms of civil rights, hate-crime legislation, and sexual harassmnt laws have been backed, in part, from the 14th amendment.

None of which can be justified by it, as it stands.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

So laws only matter if you personally agree with them????

Strange to hear from a "strict Constitutionalist"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't see where I said that at all. Unconstitutional laws should be opposed, and should eventually cease to exist.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

and since it's wrong to suggest things like
Doctors treating everyone -- and not just white people, for example

then I guess you'll be in line to oppose that??


I mean seriously dude: Consider for a moment what you seem to be defending.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

and since it's wrong to suggest things like
Doctors treating everyone -- and not just white people, for example

then I guess you'll be in line to oppose that??

Doctors should treat everyone. That doesn't mean we should create a legal obligation at odds with their right to free association.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

**BLINK**

Wow.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's called having principles.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

You defend the right of a doctor to refuse treatment to a patient due
to their skin color or religion...

AND you have the nerve to talk about "having principles"?!?!?!?!?


You dont even see the dissonance do you?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Why is it on some issues people think that if you support a right on principle it means you support the practice?

"I support the right of people to smoke marijuana."

"OMG! You want school bus drivers toking up and then driving your kids under the influence!!!!"

[oslo.livejournal.com]

In terms of civil rights legislation, there's absolutely a reasonable argument out there that the CRAs are inappropriate, if not completely unconstitutional, intrusions on private exchanges.

What is the "reasonable argument" that the Civil Rights Act is "completely unconstitutional?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Constitution offers no charter for the government to intrude into private business in that way.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

The federal government can't regulate commerce?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not unless it's interstate.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

So, Congress can "intrude into private business in that way," at least when it's interstate.

So what kind of commerce qualifies as "interstate?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So what kind of commerce qualifies as "interstate?"


Commerce between the states. Commerce that crosses state lines.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You mean the Feds can't stop white people from lynching blacks or holding full-fledged race riots whenever they please.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is a lynching like going to the grocery store? Is a baseball game equitable to a race riot?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, given that these things terrorized whites of the time as much as blacks, while the lynchings were celebrated to the point of crowds of murderers passing postcards with their faces fully visible. Nothing so suited the mindset of the old American white Christian culture as a picnic under the corpse of a burned, hanged black man, if I may be excused the vulgarity that was at one point the reality in our supposed "civilization".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that this is something in history you're entirely ignorant of, so I'll enlighten you:

http://withoutsanctuary.org/

http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/center-for-civil-and-human-rights-lynching-postcards-of-inhumanity-exhibit-january-2011/

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/2001/06/lynching/page1.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views/070100-103.htm

http://filmakers.com/index.php?a=filmDetail&filmID=1080

If people are holding fucking picnics under dead bodies, that is indeed a celebration and something people freely associated at. So don't give me this bullshit that this kind of lawlessness would have changed without the Feds.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, actually, it isn't. What I'm not "entirely ignorant of" is such a ridiculously absurd comparison.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

OK, then. So explain to me then how if people are holding picnics and passing out postcards of hangings like this done by mobs for mobs with an explicitly economic purpose in mind was not like going to the grocery store in its heyday? If they felt there was the least possibility of being prosecuted for it, there would have been a cover-up, not a commemoration, right? There wasn't, so the assumption that this was going to change without sending Federal agents and soldiers in is nonsense, this assumption is what the libertarian naive at best misunderstanding of Jim Crow relies upon. Done your way, the good people of the South would still be sending postcards like this and commemorating the murders of people hardy enough to succeed despite the system.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually it was never about this until the former Confederates slaughtered their way back into power and used this to justify re-establishing sharecropping and a black rural caste laboring for tyrannical white overlords. In the original view, restored after 1964, it was about private actions to a people who had no legal rights under the law at the time.