Quote:
Originally Posted by john w k
Seems to me you are the one who is suggesting that in addition to making things up just as you always do.
|
It's exactly what you're suggesting. It may not be what you had in mind, or the argument you're actually saying, but it's the logical conclusion to it.
The nigh-absolute "inalienable right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations" that you say the Founders meant by "liberty"
neccessarily includes the right to prejudicially discriminate against minorities, persecuting them in their own country. And in the 100 years before the creation of the Civil Rights act and the Americans with Disabilities act, that's exactly what it was used for.
But we're going in circles again.
Quote:
|
So tell me, why are you soooooooooo afraid of minorities being free to exercise their inalienable rights, such as the right to mutually agree in their business contracts and associations? Why is it that you would forbid minorities, especially Blacks, their inalienable right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations? That right was forbidden to Blacks when slavery was practiced in America!
|
Are you seriously suggesting that the two are equivalent? Sure, in some formalistic, legalistic way, persecuted minorities discriminating against the majority may be equivalent to the majority discriminating. But in the real world it's minorities who are being discriminated against. But then, your legalistic reasoning is what made you say that the people who support anti-discrimination laws are the same kind of people who made the Black Codes, so I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on this point either.