Whoa, you’re transgendered? So you were born a man and is now a woman?
You ain’t never heard of Wickard v Filburn?
I came “out” about 3/4 year ago when I came out at work, which was the only place I wasn’t. I’m an intersex transwoman, which means I not only was born with female and male aspects, but I transitioned socially and legally from one to the other.
My physician certified in an affidavit I was born ambiguous enough that either female or male applies to me, depending on the criteria.
I didn’t like coming out on here because I fearful it would get back to my job, where I was in full stealth. After I transitioned fully and was welcomed with open arms by my employer, I became a community activist and educator, and I felt it helped my case to share personal experiences - you know, speak from “authority” - on the subject on the SDMB.
Winter break I was thinking of starting an “Ask the…” thread when I would have more time to answer questions.
1964 didn’t have that. Jim Crow laws were laws, not wink-wink social contracts, segregation was mandatory and failure to comply was punishable by law.
Jim Crow laws didn’t cover a lot of places and a lot of bigotry.
Hence Green Book
I was referring to the backlash against the Civil Rights Act, on which backlash Goldwater campaigned, on purportedly libertarian grounds.
There is a big difference between sabotaging with noxious substances, or instead of a lovingly crafted white cake made from scratch with handmade french buttercream frosting you get one made with a box of dollar store off brand white cake mix, and several tubs of the veggie shortening ‘buttercream’ that the local cheap grocery store uses in their bakery with your little rainbow pony gay dudes toppers. Trust me, I could make this from a handcrafted white cake made with the finest Princess flour from King Arthur Flour, with a hand made french butter cream frosting made with the best unsalted organic butter sourced from a local farm or I could make one that looks exactly like it from a cheap box mix, and hit up a buddy for a tub of white buttercream.
So - you have in hand a photograph of the one offline for the luxury spiffy cake, and you have a snapshot from someones smartphone at the wedding that looks exactly like the internet cake but with a couple bronies on top and complain that you didn’t get the cake you ordered? Looks the same on the outside except for the bronies - you didn’t order bronies? Nope. Cute couple cutting the cake picture - looks like a white cake, was it a white cake? Yup, but it wasn’t the one I ordered. What did the order form say? White cake, white buttercream, flowers and bronies. Well, that is exactly what you got. Sorry it didn’t taste exactly like you remembered, but taste is so subjective, isn’t it now.
Passive aggressive baker at your service.
Certainly, but when one compares the states with Jim Crow laws to the states where most black Americans of the era lived, it’s a minority of bigotry that barred black Americans from equal accommodations purely due to the owner’s ill-will, rather than the law (plus said ill-will, in many cases, I assume). Thus, bigotry-disguised-as-libertarianism wasn’t the driving force of most discrimination, but rather bigotry embedded in the law.
E.g., “The Conscience of a Conservative”? In that, his objection is to federal intervention, not government intervention:
Many thanks to those that answered my earlier question (I have been at work, on a Sunday!).
Well, there is more to that specific case that just ‘growing for personal usage’ - in that there was a limit on ‘total wheat grown per acre, etc’ and the defendant went beyond that limit for wheat -
although - that does definitely validate your point - I think that in general terms - it would never come to court if a farmer was eating his own produce that did not require him to grow beyond ‘the limit’.
(Had the defendant used part of his wheat crop quota instead of going over quota, the case would never have happened).
Thanks for the cite tho - thats interesting.
There are a whole series of cases, the progeny if you will, of Wickard v. Filburn, and I thank my fellow posters for looking it up while I was doodling about.
There was a recent episode of This American Life called “House Rules” about the Fair Housing Act which starts off talking to people who still do that sort of “mystery shopping” - and, sadly, discrimination remains rife in the housing market and enforcement of the FHA extremely limited.
It’s also worth listening to because the surprise hero of the piece is George Romney. Yep - that guy’s dad.
Because hamburgers aren’t specially commissioned for a unique event. They are mass-produced and interchangeable.
I remember at my wedding when I held my wife’s gloved hand and we cut into the Wedding Double Bacon Cheeseburger.
Then what do the signs I see in businesses everywhere that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” really mean?
What kind of person can they legally not serve.
I always thought someone who was obviously high on drugs or drunk that was causing a disturbance would be an example of just such a person.
It means exactly that, they can refuse anyone the most any reason. The except to that is written into state and federal laws. A business can not refuse service to anyone based on their protected class status. A business can’t refuse service to a black man because he is black. A business could however refuse service to a black man because he’s shooting spit balls at the staff.
You think wedding cakes are unique, and don’t have interchangeable decorations? And I think I can still get my burger my way at Burger King.
Yes, because any civil rights act would be SO effective if it were left up to the former Confederates to bring it into being…
The last Confederate died in 1951, so they wouldn’t have been involved in either case.
If Goldwater thought civil rights legislation would be passed at the state level in South, he was wrong. Allow me to expand on what I mean by objecting to characterizing Goldwater’s position as libertarian:
The Goldwater/state’s rights position was that civil rights were a matter for the states. The result of this position would have been the continuation of Jim Crow laws and legal discrimination in general. If there were any proposals made of ending state and local segregation laws, but not prohibiting private discrimination, I am unaware of them, and welcome correction on this point.
The federal-civil-rights position was that civil rights laws were needed, and a federal one was the only way to achieve the desired goal.
The libertarian position, presumably, would have been to end Jim Crow laws, and make private discrimination the choice of individuals, neither prohibited (as under the Civil Rights Act) nor compulsory (as under Jim Crow).
Therefore, the libertarian position was not representative of either major “side” of the civil rights movement circa 1964.
A lot of couples buy their cake toppers from another source and add it to the cake themselves. So, the baker doesn’t even really have to know. Not that I’m advocating for that though. I think the bigots should be forced to sell to everyone, but I also think no one should patronize them.