I read this post and then I went back and read it again. Then I checked my calendar to make sure it was still 2015. I’s surprised that this one slipped under everyone’s radar.
Adaher thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went after his freedoms. The mind boggles.
I’m not a big starter of pit threads but since this is a hijack anyway and it’s sure to end up there, here you go
He doesn’t say that the Act went after HIS freedoms. Please read for comprehension. He stated that it went after “freedoms” which it unquestionably did. You might disagree that those freedoms are worth anything, but it is extremely irresponsible to hurl accusations of racism based upon this post.
Going after “freedoms” is an utterly repulsive description of the Civil Rights Act. Freedom that isn’t universal isn’t any kind of freedom at all.
We have the freedom to discriminate in our social lives. The CRA says that you cannot do the same in many situations having to do with the economic sphere, because otherwise African-Americans would be pretty much excluded from the economic life of the nation due to their minority status.
Recognizing that we have to infringe on a freedom for a greater good is an adult way of looking at a problem. Declaring that the freedom doesn’t exist at all is childish and disconnected from reality. If it didn’t exist, then the government could pass laws making you have minority friends. Do you think they refrain from this because it’s unenforceable? Or do they refrain because it would be a serious violation of your rights to tell you who you had to associate with in your personal life? Prior to the CRA, it was widely accepted that in personal AND business life, you could associate with whoever you wanted and not associate with whoever you didn’t want to. Now we can only do that in our social and personal lives, whereas in SOME business situations, we cannot discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc. But even there, there are exceptions. As an employee, you can refuse to work for an employer for any reason including their race, and you can say that out loud and there ain’t shit they can do to you. The government still recognizes the rights of employees to discriminate. If a minority employer moved into a white town in Montana and no one wanted to work for him, he’d have no recourse whatsoever in the courts barring a change in law making such discrimination illegal.
Too bad straw men are not in a protected class… 
Right, pre-1964 there was compelling evidence that blacks in the south had to travel hundreds of miles before they could find restaurants or hotels that would serve them. That called for legislative action. Gay wedding cakes? We have heard one or two anecdotal examples of being denied a wedding cake at one particular establishment. I have yet to hear of a single same sex marriage that was forced to go without cake. It doesn’t seem to be the sort of thing that requires the heavy hand of government to come into every private workplace.
The only real purpose of this law is to stick a middle finger in the the face of any person who doesn’t agree with same sex marriage AND to force them to perform a service to contribute to the wedding that they do not agree with under penalty of law. I oppose the use of state power in this respect.
I think the main purpose of such laws is to prevent the pre-1964 situation from repeating itself for gay people. Without legal protection, I think it’s very likely that we’d see the return of sundown towns, to varying degrees. If some town or locality is 90% bigoted against gays, then that town could pretty easily become a gays-aren’t-welcome-here place, without legal protections.
The problem with that analysis is that it has been legal, and is still legal, in many/most places of the country to discriminate against sexual orientation, especially in the south. Despite the legality of this discrimination, we have not seen sundown towns or refusal of public accommodations to gay people. We didn’t see this type of discrimination in the 70s, 80s, and to some degree the 90s when most people would have been just fine with large swaths of the country telling these “sexual deviants” to hit the road. During that time, sodomy was actually illegal in many places, but we still didn’t hear of widespread refusals.
Until we see some evidence that this is actually a problem, we don’t need a solution.
The fact that you personally didn’t hear about it in the news hardly means it didn’t happen.
I tend to lean a bit conservative so Hillary wouldn’t be my first choice but I do have to say that if she won I would find the head-explosion of all the right-wing pundits to be rather amusing.
I think you’ll find that the right will be much less upset about a Clinton Presidency than we’ve been over Obama’s. I don’t want clinton to win. But I think she’ll be a better President than the last two we’ve had, so I might hang my head a little in disappointment but still be thankful that it wasn’t worse.
I’m afraid that if you want exploding heads you need to get Warren to run.
I disagree – a Clinton win would be widely seen as a validation of the Obama presidency, and I don’t know if the right-wing could handle the realization that America, by and large, actually thinks that Obama was a decent-or-better president.
Yes, we’ve seen that evidence by all of their “investigations”, Vince Foster, the Clinton Chronicles, the Hillarycare demonization, Benghazi …
You do have some factual basis for that statement, don’t you?
One of them is a gimme. And you know which one, too.
Any Democrat will do that. And I think you know it too, don’t you?
The Republican base could not psychologically come to terms with a black president. Racism narrowly beats out misogyny in being a Republican core value, so there will be somewhat less animosity towards Clinton than Obama. Slightly.
If she runs promising to continue his policies, sure. I suspect she’ll be going with the Alison Lundergran Grimes strategy though.
But in any case, we can do business with Clinton. While investigating her many ethical shortcomings.
Clinton and McConnell be like, “So you like Wall Street? I like Wall Street too! We should totally hang out!”
Who is “we”? The Republicans in Congress aren’t capable of doing business with any rational person for anything substantive right now. By and large, they are not serious public servants. I seriously doubt they would even stop the Benghazi nonsense, much less actually try and accomplish a compromise.
They could have done business with Obama, but chose not to. For the first time in US history, the opposition party met on Inauguration Day of a new president’s term and vowed to try to destroy his presidency with every breath the took. I have no doubt there will be a smooth transition of hatred for Obama and opposition to his every initiative to hatred for Hillary and everything she wants to do.
What reason is there to think they’ll do anything differently with the next President Clinton? It’s all their juvenile wing even knows, and their adult wing lacks the leadership ability to control them.
There is also fault on Obama’s side, as any non-biased person will tell you. There has never been a more partisan President in terms of constantly attacking the other side. Someone should read Woodward’s The Price of Politics. The Republicans didn’t resolve to not cooperate with Obama. They always had trouble getting their caucus united enough to pass any kind of compromise, but Obama made a point of being unhelpful with insulting public statements whenever things started to look promising.
Hillary Clinton is very likely to be different. The Clintons never let personal or ideological differences get in the way of a deal. Besides, the Republicans like Wall Street. Hillary Clinton likes Wall Street. Plenty of common ground to work with. The Republicans like bombing people. Hillary Clinton likes bombing people. Again, plenty of common ground. There will be no issues working with Clinton.
Such as yourself. For which we thank you.
What *did *they resolve, then? :dubious:
Of course he did, dear, of course he did.