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!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Tree
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.
|
Real world? Another stupid debating trick ___ the mystic
“real world wand“, used to attack another’s positions without having to provide specifics or any logical or intelligent refutation.
In addition, what I really indicated is the same
thinking [not people] were behind Black Code Law as is behind the ordinance in question___ both the Black Code Laws and the ordinance in question are designed to give an advantage under law to an identifiable group intentionally contemplated when writing the legislation.
Now, how about an answer? 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!
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.