I agree! And no extremist ought to have their inalienable rights subjugated unless in their exercise the inalienable rights of another are impinged upon.

As to our founding fathers, keep in mind their stated objective:


And how does our federal Constitution begin?


And what has the united States Supreme Court confirmed is within the meaning of “liberty”?

In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 , we are reminded by the Court that:

And let us not forget what the united States SC stated in the Civil Rights Cases concerning the intention of the 14th Amendment, which is to secure “those fundamental rights which are the essence of civil freedom, namely, the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue … to inherit, purchase … property as is enjoyed by white citizens. (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.W. 3, 22 (1883).

The point is, people have an inalienable right to pursue a job. But obtaining a job also involves another inalienable right of mankind ___ the inalienable right for employer and employee to mutually agree in business contracts and associations ___ the exception being, that one may not exercise their inalienable rights in such a manner as may impinge upon another’s inalienable rights, and which our governments, state and federal, were instituted to secure.

I see nothing wrong in leaving people free ___ homosexuals, and homophobes; feminists and sexists; bigots and non bigot ___ to mutually agree in their business contracts and association, so long as they do not exercise this inalienable right in such a manner as to impinge upon another’s inalienable rights.


JWK

Are you really arguing that the Liberty the founding fathers were talking about included a fundamental right to persecute minorities, and discriminate against them in all manner of public life? That, in fact, the widespread social persecution of religious groups in England that lead to many of the creation of many of the American colonies was the Liberty that the founders fought for?

That's a truly bizarre case to quote, because it's the case that singlehandedly authorized JIM CROW! That case enabled a century of prejudicial discrimination and poverty for African Americans. If that case hadn't overturned the Civil Rights act of 1875, then African Americans in 1883 could have had the civil rights that they didn't actually get until the 1960's.

I travel far and wide and quite often. I've been to over 100 countries on 6 continents. I like telling people about our historic city of Philadelphia, Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Ben Franklin, Betsy Ross, Tom Jefferson, the letters of John Adams and his wife Abagail, Washington at Valley Forge, Lincoln at Gettysburg ...

What a glorious history and heritage we have!!!!!!!!

Especially in Europe I sometimes get nasty replies, like "You Americans are such hypocrites! Always talking about freedom and liberty and democracy ... what about your history of
slavery ... blah blah blah... the KKK ... blah blah ... Jim Crow laws ... blah blah ... race riots ... urban crime ... crazy religious sects ... blah blah blah ... Rodney King ... gun violence ... out of control crime rates ... blah blah ... Matthew Shepherd ... blah blah blah ...

I'm tired of having to defend the good ol' US of A. That's why we need to live in a country where civil rights are defended.

... AND, in my view, civil rights includes equal opportunity in employment, housing and public accommodations.

__________________
"Hatred cannot be overcome by more hatred. Only LOVE can vanquish hatred. This is a most ancient law." -- The Lord Buddha, Dhammapada, chapter 1.

Seems to me you are the one who is suggesting that in addition to making things up just as you always do.

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!

Why is it that you would forbid a homosexual the freedom to only hire other homosexuals? Why on earth would you forbid a Black business owner the inalienable right to only hire other Blacks?

JWK

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.

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.

If you read what I wrote, instead of just attacking the words "real world", you'd see the refutation. I was opposing your legalistic conceptualization of the problem, preferring a more pragmatic approach, based on "real world" context. Legalistically, opposing prejudice and imposing prejudice could be equivalent, if you focus in the reductionistic idea of "treating people differently," but in practice they're vastly different.

I wasn't quibbling about whether it's "thinking or people." Of course it's the thinking you were referring to! The black codes were passed over a hundred years ago!

But you do see the thinking as equivalent. You see opposing persecution as the same sort of thinking involved in being a persecutor. You focus on the reductionistic legalistic concept of "treating people differently" and ignore the vast practical differences in how and why they treated people differently, and what effect it has on society as a whole.

And even legalistically, they're not the same sort of thinking anyway. "Denying rights to a persecuted minority" is very different from "preventing the majority from persecuting a minority." The only similarity is that they both recognize that there are minorities and majorities.

I'm not "soooooooooo" afraid of that at all. I'm "soooooooooo" in favor of civil rights. And in practice, the right you're advocating for has been used extensively to deny blacks and other minorities their rights.

Yeah, in the "old days" when all the business were own by white who didn't want to be in business with black, that left many blacks with no way out of the situation they were faced in.


Now, things are different. Think how the recession would be today if people were able to discriminate business contracts and associations.


How fast would the people who are out of the loop would go out of business while those in the loop make it through.

__________________
TAFKATLB(TheArtistFormerlyKnowAsTheLoveBelow)

Of course, he's just trying to hide behind faux-legalese. But don't forget, you are the radical for suggesting that such acts should be illegal.

And what "rights" are you talking about? Are you taling about politically created rights which subjugate the inalienable rights of mankind? What "rights" are you talking about? Give a few examples.