DC Tom Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 That said, I'm curious to hear your explanations, given how unconstitutional you seem to think the anti discrimination laws are, as to how the Civil Rights Act has been allowed to stand since 1964. I see no significant difference between the interpretation of this ruling and the spirit of that act. 1) The Civil Rights Act was rather specific as to what a "public" venue or establishment was when defining discrimination. Most of them are truly public - government-run at some level. Most of the rest actually serve the public, in that anyone can walk in, any time, during normal business hours. 2) If you read the Civil Rights Act, you'll see that The Liberty Ridge Farm in no way meets any of the criteria set forth in the act. By the Civil Rights Act, as an event-by-reservation venue that does not provide lodging (as far as I can tell, at least) they actually are permitted to discriminate. Title II is the relevant title.
Gene Frenkle Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 1) The Civil Rights Act was rather specific as to what a "public" venue or establishment was when defining discrimination. Most of them are truly public - government-run at some level. Most of the rest actually serve the public, in that anyone can walk in, any time, during normal business hours. 2) If you read the Civil Rights Act, you'll see that The Liberty Ridge Farm in no way meets any of the criteria set forth in the act. By the Civil Rights Act, as an event-by-reservation venue that does not provide lodging (as far as I can tell, at least) they actually are permitted to discriminate. Title II is the relevant title. They definitely provide lodging, but I agree that the farm may not meet the criteria in section b of Title II if they don't rent at least 5 rooms. However, the way I'm reading subsection e: 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b). It sounds like the fact that the facility is open to the public may include them as an establishment affected by the act. I'm not exactly sure. Either way, the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act still flies in the face of the argument most are making here - that any person or business has a Constitutional right to discriminate against whomever they please. It's not any stretch from there to deem the NYS law, which seems to very clearly apply to the farm, Constitutional. No?
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 They definitely provide lodging, but I agree that the farm may not meet the criteria in section b of Title II if they don't rent at least 5 rooms. However, the way I'm reading subsection e: 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b). They didn't provide lodging that I could find. It sounds like the fact that the facility is open to the public may include them as an establishment affected by the act. I'm not exactly sure. Either way, the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act still flies in the face of the argument most are making here - that any person or business has a Constitutional right to discriminate against whomever they please. It's not any stretch from there to deem the NYS law, which seems to very clearly apply to the farm, Constitutional. No? Actually, the argument people are making is that a private entity has such a Constitutional right. Not "any" business. Really, at this point this argument is becoming about nothing more than the definition of "public" company.
Rob's House Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 It's my opinion that a good portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. But then it's also my opinion that we effectively dropped the constitution in 1942.
Southern McButterpants. Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 http://en.wikipedia....istian_Identity Which part of "legitimate" did you not understand?
Gene Frenkle Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Which part of "legitimate" did you not understand? Lol, please identify what makes a religion "legitimate". I'll hang up and listen.
4merper4mer Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Lol, please identify what makes a religion "legitimate". I'll hang up and listen. Religions whose adherents forgive the big man for making them bald.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Lol, please identify what makes a religion "legitimate". I'll hang up and listen. I think "not incredibly obscure" would be a good start.
FireChan Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Lol, please identify what makes a religion "legitimate". I'll hang up and listen. This discussion again?
Chef Jim Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) Lol, please identify what makes a religion "legitimate". I'll hang up and listen. One followed by just a tad more than .00001 percent of the population. And actually I would think you'd assume no relgions are legitimate. Am I correct? Edited August 29, 2014 by Chef Jim
Greg F Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Michael Crichton on religion: I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious. Read the whole thing.
Azalin Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Michael Crichton on religion: Read the whole thing. great read, but it seems to be much less about religion and much more about bringing science back into environmentalism.
Gene Frenkle Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) This discussion again? I didn't bring it up! One followed by just a tad more than .00001 percent of the population. And actually I would think you'd assume no relgions are legitimate. Am I correct? Hey, don't oppress them! Do you know what happens you assume? Michael Crichton on religion: Read the whole thing. Interesting read, wrong thread. Sports is my religion. I go to church 8 Sundays per year, and though I'd like to attend more, I haven't been able to do so since 1996. Edited August 29, 2014 by Gene Frenkle
Chef Jim Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Do you know what happens you assume? Did you just call me an assume? And that's right you only hate Christians.
Gene Frenkle Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Did you just call me an assume? And that's right you only hate Christians. Oops! I guess I did. As a fair-minded individual, I dislike all religions equally. They're all !@#$ed up and utterly ridiculous in their own special way. Christianity is just happens to be the one I was indoctrinated into, so it holds a truly special place in my heart.
3rdnlng Posted August 29, 2014 Author Posted August 29, 2014 Oops! I guess I did. As a fair-minded individual, I dislike all religions equally. They're all !@#$ed up and utterly ridiculous in their own special way. Christianity is just happens to be the one I was indoctrinated into, so it holds a truly special place in my heart. I was following you right up to the point where you said you had a heart.
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 I was following you right up to the point where you said you had a heart. He does. And he'll prove it, one of these Christmasses, when it grows three sizes and explodes.
Southern McButterpants. Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I think "not incredibly obscure" would be a good start. What he said. . . I don't think the "reasonable" person test would add "Christian Identity" to the list of Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Islam, Judaism, etc . . .
Chef Jim Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Oops! I guess I did. As a fair-minded individual, I dislike all religions equally. They're all !@#$ed up and utterly ridiculous in their own special way. Christianity is just happens to be the one I was indoctrinated into, so it holds a truly special place in my heart. Do you focus 100% of your attention on the negative aspects and ignore all the good things with everything or do you reserve that terrible narrow view for religion only? My mom still goes to church every Sunday. How exactly is it !@#$ing her up? There have been several deaths in our family the past few years. Some to be expected others not. Religion helped all of these people close to the loved one get through it. How is that !@#$ed up? When I was back east recently the local church sponsored a blood drive, clothing drive for the needy, a bake sale and ice cream social. How is that !@#$ed up? Don't get me wrong religion has caused some problems in the world. Hell look at the Middle East but to ignore all the good things they have done and focus only on the negative is as shortsighted as you can possible be. So lay on the couch and tell us all here at PPP. Why the animosity? What happened in your past with this "indoctrination" that has turned you so hostile towards religion? We're here to help Gene, we really are.
IDBillzFan Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 What happened in your past with this "indoctrination" that has turned you so hostile towards religion? We're here to help Gene, we really are. Maybe he was an altar boy.
Recommended Posts