Parents in Utah school opt their children out of Black History Month

[durangodawood]

Yes, like all nations back then, this nation was not perfect, "like it is now". But these flawed men created the greatest protection of the rights of the individual ever seen on the planet. I suggest you view what they did from the lens of the world in which it was created.

Remember, David was "a man after God's own heart", yet he was a murderer and adulterer.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but perfection is the enemy of excellence.

US Constitution was great for people like me!

 

[Direct Driver]

US Constitution was great for people like me!

It's actually great for everyone, once the SCOTUS acts on it. One part that troubles me, though, is that the court has made some incredible blunders regarding equal rights. That is, the constitution does not say what rights you have. Rather, it says what God given rights the government can not take away. And a "God given right" is anything you are actually able to do. Can you murder? Yep. But that particular God given right is not protected by the constitution.

Further, the foundation of the constitution is the protection of individuals' property rights, the body you occupy being a part of your property.

But think about this for a second: What if Bill wants to not let women into his restaurant. Now, that is his "god given right". But the SCOTUS says that his action violates women's rights. Well, does it? And because his restaurant is his property, are they not violating HIS rights when they tell him he has to let women on his property?

I submit that the constitution protects Bill's right to refuse service to anyone, no matter how "unfair" or stupid his reason is. And the only way the constitution applies to "God given rights" in this scenario is that the government can not pass a law saying women can not enter Bill's restaurant, whether Bill wants them to or not. This is exactly why Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but if an individual proprietor wants to limit who can step foot on his private property, for whatever reason, his God given ability to do that is protected by the constitution.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact, if a store said they would not cater to a certain race or sex I'd simply refuse to do business with them, and their competition would get my business. The market would "fix the problem" in short order.

Some argue that a store is a "public place" so it's as if the government owns the property. I disagree. The sidewalk is a public place. But the store is private property that the owner, in his own best interests, allows the public to enter his property to do business and it benefits everyone involved. The only way the government should have a say is in ensuring that public places meet certain minimal safety standards.

To be clear, I'm not saying I support Bill's decision to not allow women on his property. I'm saying the Constitution protects his God given right to make tha decision. The Constitution only prevents the GOVERNMENT from discriminating regarding the use of their property, facilities, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

It's actually great for everyone, once the SCOTUS acts on it. One part that troubles me, though, is that the court has made some incredible blunders regarding equal rights. That is, the constitution does not say what rights you have. Rather, it says what God given rights the government can not take away. And a "God given right" is anything you are actually able to do. Can you murder? Yep. But that particular God given right is not protected by the constitution.

Further, the foundation of the constitution is the protection of individuals' property rights, the body you occupy being a part of your property.

But think about this for a second: What if Bill wants to not let women into his restaurant. Now, that is his "god given right". But the SCOTUS says that his action violates women's rights. Well, does it? And because his restaurant is his property, are they not violating HIS rights when they tell him he has to let women on his property?

I submit that the constitution protects Bill's right to refuse service to anyone, no matter how "unfair" or stupid his reason is. And the only way the constitution applies to "God given rights" in this scenario is that the government can not pass a law saying women can not enter Bill's restaurant, whether Bill wants them to or not. This is exactly why Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but if an individual proprietor wants to limit who can step foot on his private property, for whatever reason, his God given ability to do that is protected by the constitution.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact, if a store said they would not cater to a certain race or sex I'd simply refuse to do business with them, and their competition would get my business. The market would "fix the problem" in short order.

Some argue that a store is a "public place" so it's as if the government owns the property. I disagree. The sidewalk is a public place. But the store is private property that the owner, in his own best interests, allows the public to enter his property to do business and it benefits everyone involved. The only way the government should have a say is in ensuring that public places meet certain minimal safety standards.

To be clear, I'm not saying I support Bill's decision to not allow women on his property. I'm saying the Constitution protects his God given right to make tha decision. The Constitution only prevents the GOVERNMENT from discriminating regarding the use of their property, facilities, etc.

There's a lot going on there.

A clear counter to one of your points is the history of bank redlining and racist zoning in the USA, in which the market did not fix the problem, and thus left black people with vastly diminished access to the top source of trans generational wealth acquirement.

There's a lot else to talk about in your post there. The body as "property" is another weird one. I'm pretty sure its un-Christian too in light of the creation story in Genesis.

 

[Direct Driver]

There's a lot going on there.

A clear counter to one of your points is the history of bank redlining and racist zoning in the USA, in which the market did not fix the problem, and thus left black people with vastly diminished access to the top source of trans generational wealth acquirement.

There's a lot else to talk about in your post there. The body as "property" is another weird one. I'm pretty sure its un-Christian too in light of the creation story in Genesis.

I was around during the redlining scandal. It was mostly just a red herring. That is, a reasonable person would have been a fool to loan money to people in certain geographical areas. That's why I say to the poor in poor neighborhoods, "Step one, get out of there at all costs."

So I don't really accept redlining as an argument.

BTW, a modern version of legal redlining is food deserts. You can't force Safeway to open a store in a popular path for pillage and burn protests, or massive shoplifting. In a sense, when banks DID redline, that is all they were doing. Refusing to do business in certain neighborhoods - until the government violated their constitutional rights and forced them to. And that led to the credit meltdown.

 

[SilverBear]

It's actually great for everyone, once the SCOTUS acts on it. One part that troubles me, though, is that the court has made some incredible blunders regarding equal rights. That is, the constitution does not say what rights you have. Rather, it says what God given rights the government can not take away. And a "God given right" is anything you are actually able to do. Can you murder? Yep. But that particular God given right is not protected by the constitution.

Further, the foundation of the constitution is the protection of individuals' property rights, the body you occupy being a part of your property.

But think about this for a second: What if Bill wants to not let women into his restaurant. Now, that is his "god given right". But the SCOTUS says that his action violates women's rights. Well, does it? And because his restaurant is his property, are they not violating HIS rights when they tell him he has to let women on his property?

I submit that the constitution protects Bill's right to refuse service to anyone, no matter how "unfair" or stupid his reason is. And the only way the constitution applies to "God given rights" in this scenario is that the government can not pass a law saying women can not enter Bill's restaurant, whether Bill wants them to or not. This is exactly why Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but if an individual proprietor wants to limit who can step foot on his private property, for whatever reason, his God given ability to do that is protected by the constitution.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact, if a store said they would not cater to a certain race or sex I'd simply refuse to do business with them, and their competition would get my business. The market would "fix the problem" in short order.

Some argue that a store is a "public place" so it's as if the government owns the property. I disagree. The sidewalk is a public place. But the store is private property that the owner, in his own best interests, allows the public to enter his property to do business and it benefits everyone involved. The only way the government should have a say is in ensuring that public places meet certain minimal safety standards.

To be clear, I'm not saying I support Bill's decision to not allow women on his property. I'm saying the Constitution protects his God given right to make tha decision. The Constitution only prevents the GOVERNMENT from discriminating regarding the use of their property, facilities, etc.

your position falls apart in light of the equal protection clause of the Constitution

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's actually great for everyone, once the SCOTUS acts on it.

It required the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments to help make it great for everyone.

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been permanently closed due to multiple flaming and goading remarks.
MOD HAT OFF​