LP Presidential Candidates on Legal Discrimination
The first televised debate amongst the current front runners in the Libertarian Party's presidential nominations took place last weekend on John Stossel's show. I missed it since UCSF's televsions don't carry the Fox Business channel.
But you can read about it at Reason magazine where Stossel gives his account of it. One of the questions was whether a jewish baker should have to bake a cake for a nazi wedding- similar to the question we've discussed here over religious folks being forced to serve LGBT types.
I was disappointed, but not too surprised, to see my favorite, Governor Gary Johnson, say he should and that it's government's role to prevent discrimination. Just another example for me that he's not a real deep thinker. But, I won't hold it against him. The mainstream candidates don't seem to be deep thinkers, either.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:59 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Or this example: Discrimination is discrimination no matter how gubbamint massages the issue.
Forcing people to accept another does not work.
Acceptance takes education and time, but some will never assimilate.
Discrimination laws to make discrimination illegal only fosters the under belly of discrimination through reverse discrimination.
If HOJ don't want to sell some piece of shit humanoid a product because the pos deserves fecal matter served best hot, then HOJ wont sell the pos anything.
Discrimination laws only work for now because the laws are meant to control business.
Without business, discrimination would shine brightly as it currently is disguised.
At some point, business won't mean shit, the laws won't apply as now because business will be lesser than now.
Some people in life HOJ has had the unfortunate experience of being abused by are pieces of shit that will never change no matter what the pos does. No color, no religion, no gender, no sexual preference, no change whatsoever does away with the pos being a pos.
If HOJ don't like you, mo law will force HOJ to "accept you".
Jewish/Nazi example works, but is not as mainstream as some other " effects from the counter culture bullshit of the 1960's".
Reverse discrimination allows those who may have been a candidate to be disciminated against........turn into abusers of society. Shit, look at the feminist movement and how it's reverse discrimination continues to shield women while constantly whining that women are underprivileged. It is so bad, the two party system is showing that Democrats are a majority women voters, where man have little to zero effect on election results, polling results. Why? Men don't play the melodramatic games that women do, especially on social issues.
Reverse discrimination is worse than discrimination because discrimination naturally exists and to reverse something natural is unnatural.
Americans in majority are being fucking brain raped for social engineering conspiracies.
HOJ has enemies, why would HOJ want to knowingly service his enemies? HOJ would not!
Discrimination sucks, but no person can change their ways by forve. It takes education, time, understanding, compassion, etc....For those who can't or won't change, as long as they don't commit crimes of hate, then "Let it Be"!
A local business that practices "legal discrimination"
IS........drum rollah......
LOST COAST OUTPOST, KYM KEMP, MAD RIVER UNION, etc...
All liberal pieces of shit!
Duly Note: MLK speech regarding a person's character, not the color of skin, or religion, etc...., but what if a culture is inherently inflammatory?
Question us and them. Christianity and Islam, Muslim, Arabic, etc.... All kill in the name of their GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why individualism is superior to governance.
Very true 9:21.
Fred, YT has the debate with commercials edited out. It's about 35 minutes long, well worth the watch. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs&feature=player_embedded
As long as the public service companies are not allowed to discriminate, we would survive. Consumers vote with their wallets.
Thanks for posting Reason's thoughts. They pretty much nailed it, IMO, in that personal opinion doesn't really matter, but what matters is the overall concept of more we the people and less govt on all levels.
Oh, the irony of saying it's the people who want to prevent discrimination in public life who are the shallow thinkers.
10:10, unless or until, there are multitudes of water companies to select from, it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be outright murder.
Gimme multitudes of choices or gimme death.
Wallets, exactly!
If discrimination today was allowed to post "public employees are not allowed", their money would go where it is accepted AND if one was not a public employee, chances are they would shop elsewhere because of the open discrimination.
Question becomes, how many who are racist would hide that racism just enough to continue selling something to whom they despise?
Lastly, HOJ appreciates knowing first hand who is discriminating and for what. Why? Public shaming that dictates wallet decisions.
As it is now, HOJ has probably spent money at a business where it's owner was a racist. Had HOJ known priorhand, HOJ would have spent his money elsewhere.
In a way, it's another political tactic to keep business going along, for if racists were open for business, how much less taxes could the government take in knowing the consumers in majority won't knowingly spend their money at a business that is racist, discriminatory.
Food for thought.
Well said, HOJ @ 5:40. Well said.
I wouldn't support someone a business who wouldn't support me.
Add the Tulawat Examiner too!
Add John Chiv too!
Apparently, the current affairs is to censor community activists who challenge a blog's character and ethics or challenge the peers being sucked up to, like a judge or attorney or politician or blog proprietor.
It seems days later, Verbena Star's comments were deleted because she ripped into Chiv. It seems TE then chose HOJ to censor because HOJ challenged censorship and pointed out, "When censoring a comment or deleting a comment, it is still considered censorship; moderation is deletion, it is censorship. Unethical people who censor and delete comments but want to call it moderation are only hiding the comments so others can't read it because if others read it others will agree That the comment is acceptable behavior, but of course, the facts that are within the comment expose certain truths about the community or some community members who are an ethical, to put it in a nice wayway.
Post a Comment
<< Home