Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?

[Money2Burn]

If the "whites only" restaurant's food is much better than the other one I don't think it will stop many white people from eating there.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person's ability to pursue there chosen life plans and access to necessary resources should not depend on the arbitrary preferences of others, on what other people think of them, especially when what other people think of them is both unjust and incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to take a big crap in your living room. It's my life plan. Your arbitrary preference that I not do this is unjust and incorrect imo.

Come on, who the [censored] has a "life plan" about eating at Denny's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, PVN, you have such a way with words. I'm sorry it took me until now to recognize it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn vs. moorobot- ah, the good old days. Moorobot makes an outrageously stupid claim, and pvn's analogies actually make sense and pwn it.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

As I said, the leftists will arbitrarily invoke this argument, because with whom we sleep is magically on the list of "privacy" rights, while from whom we buy stuff is not. Thus the collectivist, utilitarian arguments are discarded only for the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't think these things are different at all?

[tame_deuces]

He probably buys sex (yes, yes I was j/k, sorry).

But it was actually explained quite eloquently further back in the thread. They aren't 'magically' different, I quote Roland32:

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme court precedence states that whenever two constitutional rights conflict they must be balanced. However, the court states that whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by the exercise of another right it is held to a strict scrutiny.


[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The right to include and exclude of property conflicts directly with the right to consume.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the right to consume?

[ QUOTE ]
So here you have a law as applied here that makes it illegal to include or exclude commerce on the basis of race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. It only makes it illegal for one of the two parties to exclude commerce on the basis of race. It doens't restrict me, as a food purchaser, from only buying from white people (or only from black people, for that matter).

How does this law, which restricts some parties but lets other parties discriminate with impunity, not violate equal protection?

[DrunkHamster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I said, the leftists will arbitrarily invoke this argument, because with whom we sleep is magically on the list of "privacy" rights, while from whom we buy stuff is not. Thus the collectivist, utilitarian arguments are discarded only for the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't think these things are different at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are different, but I also see no relevant difference between the two cases. There seem s to be no logical reason to me why socialists should argue for, say, equality of property while not arguing for equality of getting laid - the same arguments work just as well for both.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

How does this law, which restricts some parties but lets other parties discriminate with impunity, not violate equal protection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll quote Roland32 again:

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme court precedence states that whenever two constitutional rights conflict they must be balanced. However, the court states that whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by the exercise of another right it is held to a strict scrutiny. Meaning that the State must have a compelling interest, i.e. Health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, AND the means are narrowly tailored (is there another way)


[/ QUOTE ]

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I said, the leftists will arbitrarily invoke this argument, because with whom we sleep is magically on the list of "privacy" rights, while from whom we buy stuff is not. Thus the collectivist, utilitarian arguments are discarded only for the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't think these things are different at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are different, but I also see no relevant difference between the two cases. There seem s to be no logical reason to me why socialists should argue for, say, equality of property while not arguing for equality of getting laid - the same arguments work just as well for both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hate to get drawn in and waste 20 hours arguing, but I have to say; LMFAO

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a slippery slope argument. There is no meaningful distinction to deny consenting adults freedom of association among various types of relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth with this. It seems like you are saying relationships are relationships and thats that. Seems rather black and white, to me. Am I missing something?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How does this law, which restricts some parties but lets other parties discriminate with impunity, not violate equal protection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll quote Roland32 again:

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme court precedence states that whenever two constitutional rights conflict they must be balanced. However, the court states that whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by the exercise of another right it is held to a strict scrutiny. Meaning that the State must have a compelling interest, i.e. Health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, AND the means are narrowly tailored (is there another way)


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Which doesn't answer my question. What's the "compelling interest" here in arbitrarily saying it's ok to discriminate for group X but not OK for group Y?

What constitutes "compelling interest"? If it's arbitrary and subjective, there's really no point, is there? Anything goes!