Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sirus]

And yet there are still polygamists. Does the law just not care, or has polygamy become legal since that ruling?

Fake Edit: Actually, probably not the place to discuss that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And yet there are still polygamists. Does the law just not care, or has polygamy become legal since that ruling?

Fake Edit: Actually, probably not the place to discuss that.

No it isn't, but to answer your question in a purely factual sense, polygamy is still illegal in the United States and how much the law cares varies by region.

Moving on...

[ECrownofFire]

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

[sneakey pete]

Considering how much the republican candidates are going on about Iran, it would be funny if by the time the actual election comes around all the sanctions have finally had their effect and the situation is completely over.

[Leafsnail]

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

I'm sure you also wouldn't want to go to a hospital or school staffed by racists, even if it's the only (adequate) one in your area.

[ECrownofFire]

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

I'm sure you also wouldn't want to go to a hospital or school staffed by racists, even if it's the only (adequate) one in your area.

It's usually implied that there's more than one restaurant in a specific area. Obviously, it's different for public services.

[Zrk2]

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

As a white guy I wouldn't go to a restaurant run by racists either.

[ECrownofFire]

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

As a white guy I wouldn't go to a restaurant run by racists either.

Well, obviously not. Though the original example was a black guy being refused service.

[Leafsnail]

It's usually implied that there's more than one restaurant in a specific area. Obviously, it's different for public services.

Yes, but a) what if the other restaurants in the area are also run/ attended by racists and b) being excluded from various private (but supposedly open to the public) businesses can quickly cause wider social exclusion and resentment among people.  They may even campaign for this exclusion to be made illegal.  Kindof like they did.

[UltraValican]

Well... that's gotta be a pretty obvious ruling.  Otherwise you could have people sacrificing children to their god legally.

AWWW MAN, I wanted to become part of the skull throne.

[ECrownofFire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOq3O8g1xw4

Way to read the Constitution, Romney.

[Heron TSG]

What. I don't know how he has gotten this far without reading the Constitution. It's required of all high school sophomores, why do politicians get to skip that?

[ECrownofFire]

What. I don't know how he has gotten this far without reading the Constitution. It's required of all high school sophomores, why do politicians get to skip that?

What's really scary is how he plays it off as a fucking joke and the audience just laughs at it.

[mainiac]

As a white guy I wouldn't go to a restaurant run by racists either.

Would you as a white person buy products made by companies that hire child workers, gather information on their employees for the authoritarian regimes, destroy essential farmland and water sources and poison people with pollutants that could be controlled for an affordable price?  Because I'll bet you dollars to yuan that in the past month you have bought products that were at least made in China in exactly that fashion.  And I don't blame you, such products are difficult for you as a consumer to avoid.  The right thing to do is for the government to ban such practices and for our government.  Boycotts can be effective but only on particularly salient points because boycotts don't spring from nothing.


If the government hadn't made white's only restaurants illegal back in the 60's, you would eat at them unless it was a particularly high profile social issue or you were particularly committed.  People in the past fought and won these battles and you dismiss them because they are already won.

So when people say this...

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

They are just being ignorant as to where our modern tolerance came from.  Black people don't need to patronize racists anymore because people fought those battles already.

[ECrownofFire]

If the government hadn't made white's only restaurants illegal back in the 60's, you would eat at them unless it was a particularly high profile social issue or you were particularly committed.  People in the past fought and won these battles and you dismiss them because they are already won.

So when people say this...

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place

They are just being ignorant as to where our modern tolerance came from.  Black people don't need to patronize racists anymore because people fought those battles already.

What "battle" is that though? What "victory" was taken? The victory of being able to go to a restaurant run by racists? Oh, what fun!

It's not "patronizing" anyone, because you wouldn't go there regardless of whether or not you COULD, knowing it was run by racists.

Whether or not you go near a racist, they're still a fucking racist.