After listening to you make a fool of yourself on the radio this morning, and try to explain why you think it’s ok to discriminate against blacks from renting hotel rooms and other public accommodations this video reminds me of you, Frank. Enjoy your hood and wear it proudly.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcPGiGvo-uU
Seems to me that Dan Gaffney and Rep. Atkins are a team! Anyone listening to the program this morning with even a tiny bit of open mindedness has to know the point Frank Knotts was trying to make. I did! Gaffney will explain that he never said he was a racist just his views on the housing issue are racist. (Simple Semantics!) I don’t know what the beef is between Rep. Atkins and Frank Knotts. but I hope that rational listeners see the exchange between Knotts and Gaffney for what it was; Gaffneys attempt to “stir things up”. I hope his loyal listeners remember that Dan Gaffney gets paid to cause controversy!
Frank has long attempted to hide his racism by writing posts accusing other of being racist. He will soon be promoted to Grand Dragon of the Sussex Count KKK
Frank has long attempted to hide his racism by writing posts accusing others of being racist. He will soon be promoted to Grand Dragon of the Sussex Count KKK
Anonymousthree. I don’t personally know Frank Knotts so I have no response for your comment other than to say I think it’s pretty ignorant, and written in a way that makes me think, you really don’t believe what you wrote. However, if he is, I’m sure he’ll recognize the voices of many 105.9 callers at the meetings. Enough of the childish posts please.
To Anonymous (HA HA HA), Here is my response to Mr. Atkins’ continued attempts to paint me as a racist which I just posted on your FB.
“I never said I wanted to discriminate against anyone, what I said was, that business owners have a right to deny service to anyone they choose. Be it base on how they are dressed, or for whatever reason they choose to exclude a segment of the market from their business. You and Dan Gaffney chose to narrow the conversation to be only about white people discriminating against black people. In one case it was Dan Gaffney going for shock value, in your case it is either ignorance or you are just too intellectually dishonest to be able to wrap your mind around a concept that hasn’t been spoon fed to you.
In every conversation I have had on this topic, I have said that it is morally wrong to discriminate based on race or religion, but that property owners should be allowed to be idiots if they choose to exclude a large segment of the market.
Just because I defend a racist’ right to be an idiot, does not make me a racist, anymore than defending a drunk driver makes a lawyer a drunk driver.
These so called laws that were enacted to defend certain people now serve only to separate all people. As long as we define ourselves by race, we will never move beyond race.
I would rather have a store who was an open racist for all the world to see, and then avoid, rather than a closet racist that people continue to support without knowing their true self.”
Here maybe if you hear it from someone other than me you will get it,
Rand Paul said in a CNN interview,
“RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights…for example, I can’t have a cigar bar any more, and you say, “well, that has nothing to do with race” — the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. […] The point is that its not all about that. It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.”
The point being, that if you allow the government to tell you that you have to service this person or that person, then you have empowered the government over you own property rights.
Not too long ago there was the story of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, he was sued and I believe he lost. Why should he have to bake a cake for anyone he chooses to exclude from his customer base?
The real reason John Atkins is running around FB and the internet trying to paint me as a racist is to deflect from the fact that he proposed a silly idea for a toll road and when truly challenged with facts he chose to play hide and seek like the empty shell of a politician that he is.
With his constant rant that I am a racist he is now bordering on also being a liar.
Ther is a reason people refer to him as “Teflon John”. IMHO his proposal only kept him in the media. The addage about even bad publicity is still publicity comes to mind. You can also rewind the tape to his denying the moon landing ever took place……..
Haven’t been around much since we’re dealing with some aging parents issues.
That said… businesses already have a right to deny service. “No shoes, No shirt, No service” comes to mind, so let’s stop pretending that businesses have no rights when it comes to servicing people – they do.
What you are advocating for, Frank, is for businesses being allowed to discriminate – to be open to the public, but not have to serve all the public. I do believe the 14th Amendment in that document you love addresses this. Basically, it goes like this: If you don’t want to provide service for a particular person go ahead and deny service, but if you tell a customer that you’re denying service due to their race, creed, etc. then you’re in violation of the Constitution.
The Federal Civil Rights Act addresses it as well, saying: “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Let’s say you’re a gay person or a black person living in a small town with only one pharmacy and one (just for fun) bakery and these two businesses (open to the public) decide not to serve gays or blacks. What then? Guess you could bake your own cupcakes, but how would you make your own blood pressure medicine? Should that be allowed?
Seriously, stop pretending that businesses function in a vacuum. They don’t. They rely on government roads, sewers, police, publicly educated employees, etc. If businesses truly desire the option to discriminate because they are “private” entities, then they should build, and pay for, their own roads, sewers, never call 911 and educate their workforce from K-12. If they aren’t willing to do that and want to continue to benefit from public funds (funds that blacks, gays, Muslims, Jews, etc. contribute to) then they must serve all the public.
Hmmm… I notice you edited out “or a black person” from my quote.
That said, how did the bakery who refused to serve the gay couple know they were gay? Because they were getting married and buying a wedding cake.
I would say that gay people living their lives in a community would be, you know, the gay couple who actually had a life – friends and family that know they’re gay, dinner dates at public restaurants, grocery shopping together, telling a story about their partner, getting married, not lying about their sexuality, etc..
Unless you think they should not live a normal ever day life, and should, instead, hide their homosexuality and act straight? Okay, so maybe a Jewish person shouldn’t ever wear a yarmulke in public, or no cross necklace for a Christian, no hijab for a Muslim. Not sure what you’d expect black and brown people to do.
I’m sure, Rick, that you know gay people. You do live in an area with a large gay population, right? So, how do you know they’re gay – surely you didn’t discover the gay people you know by witnessing them having sex? But thanks for missing the point!
Pandora, first of all the 14th Amendment says nothing about discrimination. It only says that all citizens have equal protection under the law.
I do not believe that government has the power to discriminate, since government is intended to represent all citizens.
However, I do feel that private businesses do have the right to be stupid. We are not a socialist nation are we? You know, where the government runs so called private businesses through regulations.
So why can’t a black business owner refuse service to a white customer? Why can’t a gay owner refuse to bake a cake for a straight couple? Why is it that you only see racism from one side?
I have said multiple times, that racism and other forms of discrimination is morally wrong, but you cannot now or have we ever been able to legislate morality. We have only attempted to drive it underground. So in many cases blacks and homosexuals and other discriminated groups have actually supported people who have a hidden hatred for them. Remember, in most cases in days of the Civil Rights movement, store owners did not refuse service, they simply made blacks use other sections. (Not advocating for this either). My point is these owners get to have the benefit of the revenue from people they hate. I would prefer to know them and avoid them.
I would prefer to be able to avoid the store that has the sign in the window, because why would I support a business that would not serve my friends and neighbors?
As for your attempt at legislative blackmail when you say that businesses have to abide by such laws because these businesses use state owned roads, and call 911, use sewers, police, publicly educated employees. Pandora this clearly illustrates your view of government, please tell us all where did the state originally find the money to create all of those services? Was it not also collected from the potential racist business owners? Do they not have protection under the afore mentioned 14th Amendment?
Look, I hate racism, I am even having to rethink many things based on my faith based views, but in a country where we guarantee freedom to march down our streets, even to NAZIs, then to have laws that restrict private property rights seems hypocritical.
You and others attempt to make this only about race of homosexuality, my point is much broader. If government can tell you who you must serve, then why can’t it in the future not tell you who you can’t serve? It is this type of thinking that led to the smoking bans in private businesses.
To go back to you original remark about no shoes, no shirt, no service, what if I am just poor and can’t afford these items? Should a store owner be able to discriminate against me for being poor? Or should we have the “EQUAL CLOTHTING ACT”?
At some point we have to recognize that we cannot legislate away all the world’s troubles.
Oh and by the way, don’t know about you, but I get my blood pressure medicine in the mail, and it’s cheaper.
You know, Frank, I want to live in your world of moonbeams and unicorns – a world that discounts history and envisions people always rising up in defense of minorities. But that’s not our history or our reality.
You make the assumption that all things are equal. They aren’t. Unless you’re claiming that there are an equal amount of minority owned businesses and white owned business in every town so it all balances out? As of 2005 “minorities own 15.1% of all U.S. businesses” and while I’m sure that number has grown it isn’t at 50% – especially outside urban areas.
So that’s reality, and as someone who lives in Sussex I’d think this would be obvious. And can you please show me the history of this country denying service/education/jobs to white, straight Christians. Or you can cite me bills that allow discrimination against Christians, straight or white people like the ones Kansas, Idaho and Arizona submitted. Go on. I’ll wait while you provide links to the reverse racism argument you love. And if you expect me to believe your “not racist” argument then reverse racism comment does you a great disservice.
And, may I suggest, you study the history of the 14th Amendment. It didn’t exist in a vacuum. You might want to start with the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
But I did notice that you didn’t answer my question. So, while I won’t hold me breath, here it is again: “Let’s say you’re a gay person or a black person living in a small town with only one pharmacy and one (just for fun) bakery and these two businesses (open to the public) decide not to serve gays or blacks. What then? Guess you could bake your own cupcakes, but how would you make your own blood pressure medicine? Should that be allowed?”
Feel free to substitute blood pressure medicine for antibiotic. But, for once, answer the flippin’ question. Tell me how this would play out?
Moving on to this:
“As for your attempt at legislative blackmail when you say that businesses have to abide by such laws because these businesses use state owned roads, and call 911, use sewers, police, publicly educated employees. Pandora this clearly illustrates your view of government, please tell us all where did the state originally find the money to create all of those services? Was it not also collected from the potential racist business owners? Do they not have protection under the afore mentioned 14th Amendment?”
Yep, they have to abide by the law, or they don’t get, ya know, a business license from the GOVERNMENT. See how that works?
The tax money collected comes from everyone – that means everyone should benefit. Or… are you suggesting that we should be able to pick and choose what we (individuals) fund as a society. Bet the military would have a big problem with that! Seriously, if you want to defend a racist’s piece of the pie (even though that document you love says something about all of us being equal) then you better start advocating for minority tax dollars being excluded from racist/bigoted businesses.
It seems to me that you’re fine with racist businesses benefiting from everyone’s tax dollars, but then want to allow them to be allowed to discriminate against certain tax payers. I. Just. Can’t. Even. Guess every capitalist society needs its serf cheerleaders.
And I’m so over the slippery slope arguments. “Hey! Let’s stop regulating prescription drug safety because that will lead to banning prescription drugs! Let’s stop regulating automobile safety because that will lead to the outlawing cars!” It’s a lazy argument.
My shoes and shirts argument was used to show that businesses are already allowed to deny service – a fact you ignored by pretending that businesses couldn’t ever refuse service. Which simply isn’t true.
Do gay people never leave the side of their partner?
Presumably they shop for things other than wedding cakes. So again, how would a business owner- particularly here, where visitors come from outside the community- know that someone is gay? Stereotypes?
Pandora, let us first settle something. The Constitution’s guarantee that all are equal applies only to government, it is not intended to apply to private businesses.
Also, my argument is not “REVERSE” racism dear, personally I do not believe there is such a thing as reverse racism. Racism either is, or isn’t, the term reverse racism suggest that there is only one form of racism. What I am saying is that racism is but one form of discrimination, and that it exist in many forms and in many ways.
I did answer your “FLIPPIN” question in the last line of my previous comment, “Oh and by the way, don’t know about you, but I get my blood pressure medicine in the mail, and it’s cheaper.”
It would seem that you are still living in the 60’s, but there are many alternatives to buying from some cracker who wouldn’t sell to blacks.
To your statement of “You make the assumption that all things are equal. They aren’t. Unless you’re claiming that there are an equal amount of minority owned businesses and white owned business in every town so it all balances out? ”
Well you seem to assume that if white business owners were not force to serve minorities, then 100% of white business owners would refuse to serve minorities. So in your dark nightmare world filled with devils and demons, all whites are racist. Now since I have never met you and don’t know your race, if I assume you are white, does that mean that you too are a racist?
You then said, “a world that discounts history and envisions people always rising up in defense of minorities. But that’s not our history or our reality.”
No my dear I do not discount our history, our history is full of terrible abuses, but unless we can first envision something, we can never achieve it.
Reality is what we make it, not what we fear it to be. In the 50’s and 60’s Martin Luther King’s reality was of a separate but equal world for minorities, but what he envisioned was unheard of. Maybe if you had been there you could have told him it would never work.
The civil rights movement was about doing away with institutionalized racism, it has grown into a world where people are separated because of the laws that were originally intended to protect people from racism. If one class of people have special protection under the law, then the 14th Amendment has no meaning at all.
Will you tell me that people are closer to being beyond race because of these laws? That people have put away their prejudices simply because the law says to?
I do believe that our society has changed, we are more tolerant as a whole of the differences that make us the nation that we are, are there still racist? yes, and there always will be, laws or no laws.
Personally I think that we would move faster towards being beyond race if we knew who the racist business owners were. Let them put up their signs, and let’s see who goes there.
You seem to envision nothing but the worst in people and that we would instantly return to separate water fountains, I on the other hand would like to envision these store owners going out of business because I just don’t think that many people would want to support such behavior in this day and age.
First off it would have to be a ma and pa store, Walmart would never do such a thing.
But you keep thinking the worst of people and I will keep envisioning that we can change without laws to force us to.
Delacrat, yes I do. The question is should it.
Exactly Dave, you do realize I am not promoting that people should be discriminated against, don’t you? I am saying that you cannot legislate morality. So your question is right on, people should ask what would Jesus do, and then do it.
People should treat others as they would have others treat them. But are they moral people if the only reason they don’t discriminate is because of man’s law?
I believe we have moved beyond the days when the majority of businesses would discriminate based on race, or even sexual orientation. Though of course there would be some throw backs. But ask how long would they survive in todays world.
I was raised by parents that had one way of seeing minorities, I realized that it was dated and not completely moral. I see minorities in a totally different way then my parents did. And I have raised my daughter to see all people as equal. I believe that we have made great strides in moving beyond judging people by their skin color.
But I do feel that these dated laws and so called protections now produce a certain amount of separation rather than solving it.
Do you really think that if these laws were removed that there would be a mad rush to discriminate? Or is it more likely that when given the choice the majority of business owners would go on about their business as they have been for years?
The problem is that once we give such power over private businesses, where might it go next? We have already seen businesses told that they can’t allow smoking in their establishments, what next?
In an attempt to have an intellectual conversation of an extremely emotional topic, people have been unable to separate history from current realities and the fact that this is a conversation, not advocacy.
And finally Dave, I think Jesus would have said abide by man’s laws as long as they don’t conflict with the word of God.
Ok, thei is how it goes Frank- if a business wishes to deny services to certain people for any reason, other than sanitary ones, shir, shoes etc…..
Then they do what all businesses like this do, they form a private club and charge a fee, then They can let in anyone they want- and bar any one they want
Pretty simple really
The rest of the businesses….they are using roads, sewer, water, basically infrastructure that I , ME PEOPLE THAT THINK LIKE ME- PAY FOR will be open to everyone.
So, seeing as the majority pay for infastructure costs, and those folks being , black, white, Asian, gay, straight etc……
Have the right to be served and to access any business that openly serves the general public. And solicits the public as customers.
They are using infastructure that we all, as a society pay for.
If they choose not to serve the general public, then we, the general public, should not be paying for their infastructure
Let them go buy 5 acres in the middle of no where, build their own access road, generate their own electricity, drill their own well. Maintain their own latrines and septic system and serve whomever they want
They can also pay extra for mail service, fire and police as well as a percentage of profits to the military, for guarding their rights to be ass*******.
Does that clear it up any
And for the record, I don’t think you are a racist, you are not suggesting businesses be allowed to discriminate based in skin color or sexual orientation, but you are looking at this the wrong way
As a white , straight , middle class working stiff, no one is going to slam the door in your face – you have been on top of your food chain so you have no concept of what it is to not be on top of the pyramid.
Why don’t you go to the Sussex Shrimp Feed Frank, stay all night, maybe when you leave, if they even let you in, you will know what being a minority is all about, be cause right now, you really are clueless about the effects of what you are proposing …….
Laffter, our friend Pandora already took the infrastructure route above, here was my response to her,
“As for your attempt at legislative blackmail when you say that businesses have to abide by such laws because these businesses use state owned roads, and call 911, use sewers, police, publicly educated employees. Pandora this clearly illustrates your view of government, please tell us all where did the state originally find the money to create all of those services? Was it not also collected from the potential racist business owners? Do they not have protection under the afore mentioned 14th Amendment?”
So you see, even racist pay taxes and have rights to.
As for knowing what a minority feels? Well in my youth I worked at times where I was but one of maybe ten whites working with around two hundred black people. You are correct however that I never felt discriminated against. I see people for who they are, and treat them as my equal, and so that is how I am treated.
I feel I have to say that this conversation originally was not about race, it was about property rights.
It was twisted into being about race by people who had a personal agenda for attacking me. One for shock value and the other to avoid discussing a lame brain idea he had.
Let us take race out of the conversation for a moment, let us ask, should a Muslim store owner be allowed to refuse service to Christians or Jews? I say yes.
I am just not convinced that there would be this mad rush to discriminate if the laws were repealed.
Maybe I am giving too much credit to my fellow human beings, but unless we have faith in mankind, what is the point of existence?
Racists are NOT a protected class under the Civil Rights Act
No , a Muslim should not be able to discriminate against a Jew or a Christian nor visa versa, because all three pay into the infrastructure. And part of living in our open culture are the rules against that behavior
If they want to do that- then go somewhere that has only people they they ” like”
See, it’s not about race or religion or sexual orientation, it’s about community, it’s about a rising tide lifting all boats, and no one individual should be allowed to interfere with that.
Property right? Sure, I’m all for it, as long as their property is Ina vacuum like I described above
I agree, this comes down to faith in our fellow man- you have never been discriminated against, therefore yr faith in mankind is higher
I have been, there fore it’s not that I have LESS faith in humanity, it’s just that I am a realist. But I have hope, and faith.
If we lifted the speed limit on all reads to you think everyone would stay with in the limits of safety?
If we had no rules do you think mankind in general would be fair
If that was the case Frank- then why did Moses get the ten Commandments? And why did Jesus have to come to save us?
I like Dave’s comment – what would Jesus do? He never discriminated and showed rage against those that cheapened the temple and profited off religion
Ah! But laffter you forget, you are talking to one of the few conservatives that does believe that their is a separation between church and state. So while I believe we should live by the Ten Commandments, I do not believe we need government, nor can government enforce them.
Okay the whole infrastructure argument breaks down for me, because if we say as long as you pay your taxes you are golden, then why can’t someone be a racist who pays there taxes.
The Civil rights act is exactly what we are talking about. By creating protected classes we also create unprotected classes, in this case business owners.
What I am saying hypothetically, is what if we repealed the CRA? Do you really think we would be transported back to the 1950’s. Let’s be real. All that these laws do now is keep people like Sharpton and Jackson in the business of pointing the race finger at anyone and everyone.
Wouldn’t it be a great experiment to see how people as a whole would react if we repealed those laws?
Frank says: “I am saying that you cannot legislate morality.”
I’m going to remind you of those words when you bring up reproductive rights. I trust you’ll stand by them. (Oh, I know you won’t. That will be different.)
This is exhausting. You do know that a racist/bigoted business wouldn’t have to post a sign saying it doesn’t hire minorities. They would just, ya know, not hire minorities. What then?
And if you think your blood pressure medicine is an answer, that’s scary – how about a antibiotic, you know, a one time medicine that isn’t delivered through the mail?
Laffter is correct. You view life through the luxury of privilege.
Then why did we need the civil Rights Act in the first place?
Why did folks March on Selma, ? If the world was according to you, we would never have needed these things.
Pandora did a great job- she cut to the chase, right to the chase….you have lived a life of privilege, white privilege and male privilege
Those two things combined puts you at the top of the socio- demographic pyramid.
The rest of us have to find another way to get ahead, preferably not on someone else’s back.
Maybe I am too idealistic, and maybe I am too willing to allow people to be who they are.
Pandora is correct, I would see abortion differently, I see that as murder and those who murder should be punished.
Laffter is also correct, there are people in Sussex who are racist, but wouldn’t it be better if they were openly racist so that the rest of Sussex would know them for who they are?
So because some people would be who they are anyway, we enact laws that do not create an equal playing field, but a slanted one.
Pandora says, “You do know that a racist/bigoted business wouldn’t have to post a sign saying it doesn’t hire minorities. They would just, ya know, not hire minorities.”
Pandora, and you think that with the laws in place, that this is not happening anyway? Do you think that this doesn’t happen everyday? So what good are the laws, but to allow the Sharptons and the Jacksons of the world to stir the pot.
Frank says: “Pandora is correct, I would see abortion differently, I see that as murder and those who murder should be punished.”
So… you’re okay with legislating your morality, Frank. Who are you going to punish? The women seeking an abortion? If you disagree, please tell me why. Be specific.
Yes Pandora we do, as do most people in Sussex, and it is my view that because we allow them to hide behind these laws, then people are free to support them.
And why not the women, as well as the doctors? If a mother kills her child after birth it is murder. But because someone picked an arbitrary number of months, it isn’t?
Why do you feel it is okay to kill a baby after two months of life in the womb, but not two months outside the womb? And please, you and I have known each other in the blogging world to know we disagree on when life begins, so save yourself the trouble of trying to set a word trap for me. This is my view, you have yours.
Now you are supposed to ask why it is okay to punish murderers and not racist, right?
Well a private business owner who is a racist cannot deprive you of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, those things still exist elsewhere other than just in their store, but a murderer takes all of those things from you when they take your life.
All I’m doing is pointing out that you have absolutely no trouble legislating morality – as long as it’s your morality. So feel free to drop that talking point from your repertoire because you do think morality can be legislated.
“Let us take race out of the conversation for a moment, let us ask, should a Muslim store owner be allowed to refuse service to Christians or Jews? I say yes.”
Even if the Muslim were the only propane provider in the area and the Christian or Jew needed the propane to heat their homes? Or telephone company; or water company. Suppose a company says they don’t deliver propane to gay households? How about pharmaceutical businesses? Or is it just bakeries and restaurants? Or are there limits to the businesses you would give the freedom to refuse service?
Dave, once you allow government to make these decisions, then there is no longer any private businesses. Again you assume that if the laws were repealed, then there would be a mad rush to discriminate. Let’s say that this company that exist in a vacuum does discriminate, it would seem like an opportunity for a non Muslim company to come into the area and suck up all of that business that the Muslim refuses to serve.
Delacrat, just because something is settled law does not mean it is right or even best for the people.
I believe minorities are ill served by these laws, these laws say that they are lesser citizens that need special protection beyond the protection of the 14th Amendment. If we are all created equal then we should all be treated the same in the eyes of the law. These laws are not applied equally, or even perceived to be.
“these laws say that they are lesser citizens that need special protection beyond the protection of the 14th Amendment. ”
While I might quibble with the word “lesser,” it is correct in what it states. The proof of that is the proposed Arizona law which would codify such treatment. Private bus companies sending certain people to the back of the bus or whatever.
I’m not a fan of laws to create protected classes of citizens. I like you believe that everyone should have equal rights under the Constitution. But these kinds of laws pop up it demonstrates that there remains a need because businesses could exclude certain citizens from obtaining the very necessities of life – food, clothing, and shelter. Would you propose that they establish their own bakeries? Build their own apartments? Create their own clothing stores? How about their own drinking fountains?
“Irish Need Not Apply” or “No Coloreds Allowed” is not the America we are. We left that behind as we evolved as a society and good riddance to it. Can you imagine seeing similar signs “No Gays Allowed” “Gays Need Not Apply”?
Frank says: “The problem is that once we give such power over private businesses, where might it go next?”
Why are you allowed to use the slippery slope argument (and you use it a lot) and then dismiss others when they counter with their slippery slope.
These BS “religious freedom” laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with discrimination. The proponents of these laws know they can’t call them what they really are, so they trot out religion (always convenient). They pretend these laws aren’t about gays, blacks, women, etc. and claim the laws are really about them and their persecution. Utter nonsense. Everyone with a brain knows exactly the point of these laws.
But, let’s play Frank’s slippery slope game…
So, if a business owner’s “religious” beliefs said that divorce and sex outside of marriage was wrong then that business owner could refuse service to a divorced person or unwed mother, right?
And the idea that a small town would have the population to support businesses that serve gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. is ridiculous.
This is always the problem with the Libertarian mindset. Grandiose ideas that sound good (Freedom! Liberty! Individuality!) but when you scratch the surface they fall apart.
No Delacrat, we don’t, then why do we believe that it is only through us that they can be protected.
Pandora, you are putting words in my argument that I have not made.
I do not believe that the law in Arizona should be based on religious belief, in my view that then puts the business owner’s religion on trial. I believe that the owners have the right to refuse service, end of statement.
You keep forgetting that I am the conservative who believes in the total separation of church and state.
As for Libertarian views, well yes I guess this may be seen that way, but in my case small “l” not capital “L”.
To Dave’s question, ” Would you propose that they establish their own bakeries? Build their own apartments? Create their own clothing stores? How about their own drinking fountains?”
So Dave, who are they? Do you believe that every white owner would discriminate against minorities? Is every white person a racist in your view? And yes, if a dumb ass owner wanted to put up such signs, let them, then I and you and Pandora can avoid supporting them. The way it is now we may be supporting racist without knowing it, and who knows where they send their earnings, maybe even to the KKK. The light of day is what drove racist underground, the images of dogs attacking children in the streets of the south. Now these people are still racist but we don’t know them anymore for what they are.
Can you not imagine that every network would have a camera truck in front of the first business to put up such signs? They would be known around the nation for the racist they are, not the pretend good citizen and neighbor they now pretend to be.
You envision a mad rush to discriminate, I envision a few throw backs. But more importantly I envision laws that restrict private ownership removed.
After listening to you make a fool of yourself on the radio this morning, and try to explain why you think it’s ok to discriminate against blacks from renting hotel rooms and other public accommodations this video reminds me of you, Frank. Enjoy your hood and wear it proudly.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcPGiGvo-uU
Seems to me that Dan Gaffney and Rep. Atkins are a team! Anyone listening to the program this morning with even a tiny bit of open mindedness has to know the point Frank Knotts was trying to make. I did! Gaffney will explain that he never said he was a racist just his views on the housing issue are racist. (Simple Semantics!) I don’t know what the beef is between Rep. Atkins and Frank Knotts. but I hope that rational listeners see the exchange between Knotts and Gaffney for what it was; Gaffneys attempt to “stir things up”. I hope his loyal listeners remember that Dan Gaffney gets paid to cause controversy!
Frank has long attempted to hide his racism by writing posts accusing other of being racist. He will soon be promoted to Grand Dragon of the Sussex Count KKK
Frank has long attempted to hide his racism by writing posts accusing others of being racist. He will soon be promoted to Grand Dragon of the Sussex Count KKK
Anonymousthree. I don’t personally know Frank Knotts so I have no response for your comment other than to say I think it’s pretty ignorant, and written in a way that makes me think, you really don’t believe what you wrote. However, if he is, I’m sure he’ll recognize the voices of many 105.9 callers at the meetings. Enough of the childish posts please.
To Anonymous (HA HA HA), Here is my response to Mr. Atkins’ continued attempts to paint me as a racist which I just posted on your FB.
“I never said I wanted to discriminate against anyone, what I said was, that business owners have a right to deny service to anyone they choose. Be it base on how they are dressed, or for whatever reason they choose to exclude a segment of the market from their business. You and Dan Gaffney chose to narrow the conversation to be only about white people discriminating against black people. In one case it was Dan Gaffney going for shock value, in your case it is either ignorance or you are just too intellectually dishonest to be able to wrap your mind around a concept that hasn’t been spoon fed to you.
In every conversation I have had on this topic, I have said that it is morally wrong to discriminate based on race or religion, but that property owners should be allowed to be idiots if they choose to exclude a large segment of the market.
Just because I defend a racist’ right to be an idiot, does not make me a racist, anymore than defending a drunk driver makes a lawyer a drunk driver.
These so called laws that were enacted to defend certain people now serve only to separate all people. As long as we define ourselves by race, we will never move beyond race.
I would rather have a store who was an open racist for all the world to see, and then avoid, rather than a closet racist that people continue to support without knowing their true self.”
Here maybe if you hear it from someone other than me you will get it,
Rand Paul said in a CNN interview,
“RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights…for example, I can’t have a cigar bar any more, and you say, “well, that has nothing to do with race” — the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. […] The point is that its not all about that. It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.”
The point being, that if you allow the government to tell you that you have to service this person or that person, then you have empowered the government over you own property rights.
Not too long ago there was the story of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, he was sued and I believe he lost. Why should he have to bake a cake for anyone he chooses to exclude from his customer base?
The real reason John Atkins is running around FB and the internet trying to paint me as a racist is to deflect from the fact that he proposed a silly idea for a toll road and when truly challenged with facts he chose to play hide and seek like the empty shell of a politician that he is.
With his constant rant that I am a racist he is now bordering on also being a liar.
Ther is a reason people refer to him as “Teflon John”. IMHO his proposal only kept him in the media. The addage about even bad publicity is still publicity comes to mind. You can also rewind the tape to his denying the moon landing ever took place……..
Haven’t been around much since we’re dealing with some aging parents issues.
That said… businesses already have a right to deny service. “No shoes, No shirt, No service” comes to mind, so let’s stop pretending that businesses have no rights when it comes to servicing people – they do.
What you are advocating for, Frank, is for businesses being allowed to discriminate – to be open to the public, but not have to serve all the public. I do believe the 14th Amendment in that document you love addresses this. Basically, it goes like this: If you don’t want to provide service for a particular person go ahead and deny service, but if you tell a customer that you’re denying service due to their race, creed, etc. then you’re in violation of the Constitution.
The Federal Civil Rights Act addresses it as well, saying: “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Let’s say you’re a gay person or a black person living in a small town with only one pharmacy and one (just for fun) bakery and these two businesses (open to the public) decide not to serve gays or blacks. What then? Guess you could bake your own cupcakes, but how would you make your own blood pressure medicine? Should that be allowed?
Seriously, stop pretending that businesses function in a vacuum. They don’t. They rely on government roads, sewers, police, publicly educated employees, etc. If businesses truly desire the option to discriminate because they are “private” entities, then they should build, and pay for, their own roads, sewers, never call 911 and educate their workforce from K-12. If they aren’t willing to do that and want to continue to benefit from public funds (funds that blacks, gays, Muslims, Jews, etc. contribute to) then they must serve all the public.
Let’s say you’re a gay person…and these two businesses (open to the public) decide not to serve gays…
How would you know they are gay? Stereotypes?
Hmmm… I notice you edited out “or a black person” from my quote.
That said, how did the bakery who refused to serve the gay couple know they were gay? Because they were getting married and buying a wedding cake.
I would say that gay people living their lives in a community would be, you know, the gay couple who actually had a life – friends and family that know they’re gay, dinner dates at public restaurants, grocery shopping together, telling a story about their partner, getting married, not lying about their sexuality, etc..
Unless you think they should not live a normal ever day life, and should, instead, hide their homosexuality and act straight? Okay, so maybe a Jewish person shouldn’t ever wear a yarmulke in public, or no cross necklace for a Christian, no hijab for a Muslim. Not sure what you’d expect black and brown people to do.
I’m sure, Rick, that you know gay people. You do live in an area with a large gay population, right? So, how do you know they’re gay – surely you didn’t discover the gay people you know by witnessing them having sex? But thanks for missing the point!
Pandora, first of all the 14th Amendment says nothing about discrimination. It only says that all citizens have equal protection under the law.
I do not believe that government has the power to discriminate, since government is intended to represent all citizens.
However, I do feel that private businesses do have the right to be stupid. We are not a socialist nation are we? You know, where the government runs so called private businesses through regulations.
So why can’t a black business owner refuse service to a white customer? Why can’t a gay owner refuse to bake a cake for a straight couple? Why is it that you only see racism from one side?
I have said multiple times, that racism and other forms of discrimination is morally wrong, but you cannot now or have we ever been able to legislate morality. We have only attempted to drive it underground. So in many cases blacks and homosexuals and other discriminated groups have actually supported people who have a hidden hatred for them. Remember, in most cases in days of the Civil Rights movement, store owners did not refuse service, they simply made blacks use other sections. (Not advocating for this either). My point is these owners get to have the benefit of the revenue from people they hate. I would prefer to know them and avoid them.
I would prefer to be able to avoid the store that has the sign in the window, because why would I support a business that would not serve my friends and neighbors?
As for your attempt at legislative blackmail when you say that businesses have to abide by such laws because these businesses use state owned roads, and call 911, use sewers, police, publicly educated employees. Pandora this clearly illustrates your view of government, please tell us all where did the state originally find the money to create all of those services? Was it not also collected from the potential racist business owners? Do they not have protection under the afore mentioned 14th Amendment?
Look, I hate racism, I am even having to rethink many things based on my faith based views, but in a country where we guarantee freedom to march down our streets, even to NAZIs, then to have laws that restrict private property rights seems hypocritical.
You and others attempt to make this only about race of homosexuality, my point is much broader. If government can tell you who you must serve, then why can’t it in the future not tell you who you can’t serve? It is this type of thinking that led to the smoking bans in private businesses.
To go back to you original remark about no shoes, no shirt, no service, what if I am just poor and can’t afford these items? Should a store owner be able to discriminate against me for being poor? Or should we have the “EQUAL CLOTHTING ACT”?
At some point we have to recognize that we cannot legislate away all the world’s troubles.
Oh and by the way, don’t know about you, but I get my blood pressure medicine in the mail, and it’s cheaper.
You know, Frank, I want to live in your world of moonbeams and unicorns – a world that discounts history and envisions people always rising up in defense of minorities. But that’s not our history or our reality.
You make the assumption that all things are equal. They aren’t. Unless you’re claiming that there are an equal amount of minority owned businesses and white owned business in every town so it all balances out? As of 2005 “minorities own 15.1% of all U.S. businesses” and while I’m sure that number has grown it isn’t at 50% – especially outside urban areas.
So that’s reality, and as someone who lives in Sussex I’d think this would be obvious. And can you please show me the history of this country denying service/education/jobs to white, straight Christians. Or you can cite me bills that allow discrimination against Christians, straight or white people like the ones Kansas, Idaho and Arizona submitted. Go on. I’ll wait while you provide links to the reverse racism argument you love. And if you expect me to believe your “not racist” argument then reverse racism comment does you a great disservice.
And, may I suggest, you study the history of the 14th Amendment. It didn’t exist in a vacuum. You might want to start with the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
But I did notice that you didn’t answer my question. So, while I won’t hold me breath, here it is again: “Let’s say you’re a gay person or a black person living in a small town with only one pharmacy and one (just for fun) bakery and these two businesses (open to the public) decide not to serve gays or blacks. What then? Guess you could bake your own cupcakes, but how would you make your own blood pressure medicine? Should that be allowed?”
Feel free to substitute blood pressure medicine for antibiotic. But, for once, answer the flippin’ question. Tell me how this would play out?
Moving on to this:
“As for your attempt at legislative blackmail when you say that businesses have to abide by such laws because these businesses use state owned roads, and call 911, use sewers, police, publicly educated employees. Pandora this clearly illustrates your view of government, please tell us all where did the state originally find the money to create all of those services? Was it not also collected from the potential racist business owners? Do they not have protection under the afore mentioned 14th Amendment?”
Yep, they have to abide by the law, or they don’t get, ya know, a business license from the GOVERNMENT. See how that works?
The tax money collected comes from everyone – that means everyone should benefit. Or… are you suggesting that we should be able to pick and choose what we (individuals) fund as a society. Bet the military would have a big problem with that! Seriously, if you want to defend a racist’s piece of the pie (even though that document you love says something about all of us being equal) then you better start advocating for minority tax dollars being excluded from racist/bigoted businesses.
It seems to me that you’re fine with racist businesses benefiting from everyone’s tax dollars, but then want to allow them to be allowed to discriminate against certain tax payers. I. Just. Can’t. Even. Guess every capitalist society needs its serf cheerleaders.
And I’m so over the slippery slope arguments. “Hey! Let’s stop regulating prescription drug safety because that will lead to banning prescription drugs! Let’s stop regulating automobile safety because that will lead to the outlawing cars!” It’s a lazy argument.
My shoes and shirts argument was used to show that businesses are already allowed to deny service – a fact you ignored by pretending that businesses couldn’t ever refuse service. Which simply isn’t true.
Do gay people never leave the side of their partner?
Presumably they shop for things other than wedding cakes. So again, how would a business owner- particularly here, where visitors come from outside the community- know that someone is gay? Stereotypes?
Pandora, let us first settle something. The Constitution’s guarantee that all are equal applies only to government, it is not intended to apply to private businesses.
Also, my argument is not “REVERSE” racism dear, personally I do not believe there is such a thing as reverse racism. Racism either is, or isn’t, the term reverse racism suggest that there is only one form of racism. What I am saying is that racism is but one form of discrimination, and that it exist in many forms and in many ways.
I did answer your “FLIPPIN” question in the last line of my previous comment, “Oh and by the way, don’t know about you, but I get my blood pressure medicine in the mail, and it’s cheaper.”
It would seem that you are still living in the 60’s, but there are many alternatives to buying from some cracker who wouldn’t sell to blacks.
To your statement of “You make the assumption that all things are equal. They aren’t. Unless you’re claiming that there are an equal amount of minority owned businesses and white owned business in every town so it all balances out? ”
Well you seem to assume that if white business owners were not force to serve minorities, then 100% of white business owners would refuse to serve minorities. So in your dark nightmare world filled with devils and demons, all whites are racist. Now since I have never met you and don’t know your race, if I assume you are white, does that mean that you too are a racist?
You then said, “a world that discounts history and envisions people always rising up in defense of minorities. But that’s not our history or our reality.”
No my dear I do not discount our history, our history is full of terrible abuses, but unless we can first envision something, we can never achieve it.
Reality is what we make it, not what we fear it to be. In the 50’s and 60’s Martin Luther King’s reality was of a separate but equal world for minorities, but what he envisioned was unheard of. Maybe if you had been there you could have told him it would never work.
The civil rights movement was about doing away with institutionalized racism, it has grown into a world where people are separated because of the laws that were originally intended to protect people from racism. If one class of people have special protection under the law, then the 14th Amendment has no meaning at all.
Will you tell me that people are closer to being beyond race because of these laws? That people have put away their prejudices simply because the law says to?
I do believe that our society has changed, we are more tolerant as a whole of the differences that make us the nation that we are, are there still racist? yes, and there always will be, laws or no laws.
Personally I think that we would move faster towards being beyond race if we knew who the racist business owners were. Let them put up their signs, and let’s see who goes there.
You seem to envision nothing but the worst in people and that we would instantly return to separate water fountains, I on the other hand would like to envision these store owners going out of business because I just don’t think that many people would want to support such behavior in this day and age.
First off it would have to be a ma and pa store, Walmart would never do such a thing.
But you keep thinking the worst of people and I will keep envisioning that we can change without laws to force us to.
“I do feel businesses have a right to be stupid” – Frank Knotts
Frank,
While you may feel that stupidity is a right, such a right is not recognized in either statutory or case law.
As a person of faith Frank, I assume you’ve asked yourself “What would Jesus do?”
Delacrat, yes I do. The question is should it.
Exactly Dave, you do realize I am not promoting that people should be discriminated against, don’t you? I am saying that you cannot legislate morality. So your question is right on, people should ask what would Jesus do, and then do it.
People should treat others as they would have others treat them. But are they moral people if the only reason they don’t discriminate is because of man’s law?
I believe we have moved beyond the days when the majority of businesses would discriminate based on race, or even sexual orientation. Though of course there would be some throw backs. But ask how long would they survive in todays world.
I was raised by parents that had one way of seeing minorities, I realized that it was dated and not completely moral. I see minorities in a totally different way then my parents did. And I have raised my daughter to see all people as equal. I believe that we have made great strides in moving beyond judging people by their skin color.
But I do feel that these dated laws and so called protections now produce a certain amount of separation rather than solving it.
Do you really think that if these laws were removed that there would be a mad rush to discriminate? Or is it more likely that when given the choice the majority of business owners would go on about their business as they have been for years?
The problem is that once we give such power over private businesses, where might it go next? We have already seen businesses told that they can’t allow smoking in their establishments, what next?
In an attempt to have an intellectual conversation of an extremely emotional topic, people have been unable to separate history from current realities and the fact that this is a conversation, not advocacy.
And finally Dave, I think Jesus would have said abide by man’s laws as long as they don’t conflict with the word of God.
WHOA. WHOA WHOA……
Ok, thei is how it goes Frank- if a business wishes to deny services to certain people for any reason, other than sanitary ones, shir, shoes etc…..
Then they do what all businesses like this do, they form a private club and charge a fee, then They can let in anyone they want- and bar any one they want
Pretty simple really
The rest of the businesses….they are using roads, sewer, water, basically infrastructure that I , ME PEOPLE THAT THINK LIKE ME- PAY FOR will be open to everyone.
So, seeing as the majority pay for infastructure costs, and those folks being , black, white, Asian, gay, straight etc……
Have the right to be served and to access any business that openly serves the general public. And solicits the public as customers.
They are using infastructure that we all, as a society pay for.
If they choose not to serve the general public, then we, the general public, should not be paying for their infastructure
Let them go buy 5 acres in the middle of no where, build their own access road, generate their own electricity, drill their own well. Maintain their own latrines and septic system and serve whomever they want
They can also pay extra for mail service, fire and police as well as a percentage of profits to the military, for guarding their rights to be ass*******.
Does that clear it up any
And for the record, I don’t think you are a racist, you are not suggesting businesses be allowed to discriminate based in skin color or sexual orientation, but you are looking at this the wrong way
As a white , straight , middle class working stiff, no one is going to slam the door in your face – you have been on top of your food chain so you have no concept of what it is to not be on top of the pyramid.
Why don’t you go to the Sussex Shrimp Feed Frank, stay all night, maybe when you leave, if they even let you in, you will know what being a minority is all about, be cause right now, you really are clueless about the effects of what you are proposing …….
And really, this weekend I so have had my fill of “CHRISTIANS” that have been called by God to serve”…………
……………but only THESE certain people. The ones that look and sound like themselves.
What a bunch of XXXXXXNXNEJEKDNFM CRAP,
People like that make real Christians look bad
” and by their acts you shall know them”
Yeah- got it…..
Laffter, our friend Pandora already took the infrastructure route above, here was my response to her,
“As for your attempt at legislative blackmail when you say that businesses have to abide by such laws because these businesses use state owned roads, and call 911, use sewers, police, publicly educated employees. Pandora this clearly illustrates your view of government, please tell us all where did the state originally find the money to create all of those services? Was it not also collected from the potential racist business owners? Do they not have protection under the afore mentioned 14th Amendment?”
So you see, even racist pay taxes and have rights to.
As for knowing what a minority feels? Well in my youth I worked at times where I was but one of maybe ten whites working with around two hundred black people. You are correct however that I never felt discriminated against. I see people for who they are, and treat them as my equal, and so that is how I am treated.
I feel I have to say that this conversation originally was not about race, it was about property rights.
It was twisted into being about race by people who had a personal agenda for attacking me. One for shock value and the other to avoid discussing a lame brain idea he had.
Let us take race out of the conversation for a moment, let us ask, should a Muslim store owner be allowed to refuse service to Christians or Jews? I say yes.
I am just not convinced that there would be this mad rush to discriminate if the laws were repealed.
Maybe I am giving too much credit to my fellow human beings, but unless we have faith in mankind, what is the point of existence?
Racists are NOT a protected class under the Civil Rights Act
No , a Muslim should not be able to discriminate against a Jew or a Christian nor visa versa, because all three pay into the infrastructure. And part of living in our open culture are the rules against that behavior
If they want to do that- then go somewhere that has only people they they ” like”
See, it’s not about race or religion or sexual orientation, it’s about community, it’s about a rising tide lifting all boats, and no one individual should be allowed to interfere with that.
Property right? Sure, I’m all for it, as long as their property is Ina vacuum like I described above
I agree, this comes down to faith in our fellow man- you have never been discriminated against, therefore yr faith in mankind is higher
I have been, there fore it’s not that I have LESS faith in humanity, it’s just that I am a realist. But I have hope, and faith.
If we lifted the speed limit on all reads to you think everyone would stay with in the limits of safety?
If we had no rules do you think mankind in general would be fair
If that was the case Frank- then why did Moses get the ten Commandments? And why did Jesus have to come to save us?
I like Dave’s comment – what would Jesus do? He never discriminated and showed rage against those that cheapened the temple and profited off religion
Think about that…… ;-).
Ah! But laffter you forget, you are talking to one of the few conservatives that does believe that their is a separation between church and state. So while I believe we should live by the Ten Commandments, I do not believe we need government, nor can government enforce them.
Okay the whole infrastructure argument breaks down for me, because if we say as long as you pay your taxes you are golden, then why can’t someone be a racist who pays there taxes.
The Civil rights act is exactly what we are talking about. By creating protected classes we also create unprotected classes, in this case business owners.
What I am saying hypothetically, is what if we repealed the CRA? Do you really think we would be transported back to the 1950’s. Let’s be real. All that these laws do now is keep people like Sharpton and Jackson in the business of pointing the race finger at anyone and everyone.
Wouldn’t it be a great experiment to see how people as a whole would react if we repealed those laws?
Frank says: “I am saying that you cannot legislate morality.”
I’m going to remind you of those words when you bring up reproductive rights. I trust you’ll stand by them. (Oh, I know you won’t. That will be different.)
This is exhausting. You do know that a racist/bigoted business wouldn’t have to post a sign saying it doesn’t hire minorities. They would just, ya know, not hire minorities. What then?
And if you think your blood pressure medicine is an answer, that’s scary – how about a antibiotic, you know, a one time medicine that isn’t delivered through the mail?
Laffter is correct. You view life through the luxury of privilege.
Frank- we could simply repeal those laws in Sussex county and YOU of all People know, and I mean , know in your heart what would happen.
It’s not your beliefs that make you who you are , it’s your actions…..
Would you really want some of the folks you KNOW, and have heard them talk….you know what they would do, and none of it would be pretty.
If mankind is soooooo kind
Then why did we need the civil Rights Act in the first place?
Why did folks March on Selma, ? If the world was according to you, we would never have needed these things.
Pandora did a great job- she cut to the chase, right to the chase….you have lived a life of privilege, white privilege and male privilege
Those two things combined puts you at the top of the socio- demographic pyramid.
The rest of us have to find another way to get ahead, preferably not on someone else’s back.
Maybe I am too idealistic, and maybe I am too willing to allow people to be who they are.
Pandora is correct, I would see abortion differently, I see that as murder and those who murder should be punished.
Laffter is also correct, there are people in Sussex who are racist, but wouldn’t it be better if they were openly racist so that the rest of Sussex would know them for who they are?
So because some people would be who they are anyway, we enact laws that do not create an equal playing field, but a slanted one.
Pandora says, “You do know that a racist/bigoted business wouldn’t have to post a sign saying it doesn’t hire minorities. They would just, ya know, not hire minorities.”
Pandora, and you think that with the laws in place, that this is not happening anyway? Do you think that this doesn’t happen everyday? So what good are the laws, but to allow the Sharptons and the Jacksons of the world to stir the pot.
Frank says: “Pandora is correct, I would see abortion differently, I see that as murder and those who murder should be punished.”
So… you’re okay with legislating your morality, Frank. Who are you going to punish? The women seeking an abortion? If you disagree, please tell me why. Be specific.
We already know who they are Frank, even tho they try to hide it…
But thank you for trying…. 😉
Yes Pandora we do, as do most people in Sussex, and it is my view that because we allow them to hide behind these laws, then people are free to support them.
And why not the women, as well as the doctors? If a mother kills her child after birth it is murder. But because someone picked an arbitrary number of months, it isn’t?
Why do you feel it is okay to kill a baby after two months of life in the womb, but not two months outside the womb? And please, you and I have known each other in the blogging world to know we disagree on when life begins, so save yourself the trouble of trying to set a word trap for me. This is my view, you have yours.
Now you are supposed to ask why it is okay to punish murderers and not racist, right?
Well a private business owner who is a racist cannot deprive you of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, those things still exist elsewhere other than just in their store, but a murderer takes all of those things from you when they take your life.
Frank- respectful, there is a vast difference between
PRO-LIFE
and
PRO- BIRTH
It’s the 50+ years AFTER the baby is born is where the issues lies.
All I’m doing is pointing out that you have absolutely no trouble legislating morality – as long as it’s your morality. So feel free to drop that talking point from your repertoire because you do think morality can be legislated.
“Let us take race out of the conversation for a moment, let us ask, should a Muslim store owner be allowed to refuse service to Christians or Jews? I say yes.”
Even if the Muslim were the only propane provider in the area and the Christian or Jew needed the propane to heat their homes? Or telephone company; or water company. Suppose a company says they don’t deliver propane to gay households? How about pharmaceutical businesses? Or is it just bakeries and restaurants? Or are there limits to the businesses you would give the freedom to refuse service?
Frank,
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans racial segregation by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.
It’s been settled law for half a century.
We’re all equal now. Get with the program.
Dave, once you allow government to make these decisions, then there is no longer any private businesses. Again you assume that if the laws were repealed, then there would be a mad rush to discriminate. Let’s say that this company that exist in a vacuum does discriminate, it would seem like an opportunity for a non Muslim company to come into the area and suck up all of that business that the Muslim refuses to serve.
Delacrat, just because something is settled law does not mean it is right or even best for the people.
I believe minorities are ill served by these laws, these laws say that they are lesser citizens that need special protection beyond the protection of the 14th Amendment. If we are all created equal then we should all be treated the same in the eyes of the law. These laws are not applied equally, or even perceived to be.
“these laws say that they are lesser citizens that need special protection beyond the protection of the 14th Amendment. ”
While I might quibble with the word “lesser,” it is correct in what it states. The proof of that is the proposed Arizona law which would codify such treatment. Private bus companies sending certain people to the back of the bus or whatever.
I’m not a fan of laws to create protected classes of citizens. I like you believe that everyone should have equal rights under the Constitution. But these kinds of laws pop up it demonstrates that there remains a need because businesses could exclude certain citizens from obtaining the very necessities of life – food, clothing, and shelter. Would you propose that they establish their own bakeries? Build their own apartments? Create their own clothing stores? How about their own drinking fountains?
“Irish Need Not Apply” or “No Coloreds Allowed” is not the America we are. We left that behind as we evolved as a society and good riddance to it. Can you imagine seeing similar signs “No Gays Allowed” “Gays Need Not Apply”?
Frank says: “The problem is that once we give such power over private businesses, where might it go next?”
Why are you allowed to use the slippery slope argument (and you use it a lot) and then dismiss others when they counter with their slippery slope.
These BS “religious freedom” laws have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with discrimination. The proponents of these laws know they can’t call them what they really are, so they trot out religion (always convenient). They pretend these laws aren’t about gays, blacks, women, etc. and claim the laws are really about them and their persecution. Utter nonsense. Everyone with a brain knows exactly the point of these laws.
But, let’s play Frank’s slippery slope game…
So, if a business owner’s “religious” beliefs said that divorce and sex outside of marriage was wrong then that business owner could refuse service to a divorced person or unwed mother, right?
And the idea that a small town would have the population to support businesses that serve gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. is ridiculous.
This is always the problem with the Libertarian mindset. Grandiose ideas that sound good (Freedom! Liberty! Individuality!) but when you scratch the surface they fall apart.
“I believe minorities are ill served by these laws,” – F. Knotts
Of course. Frank’s a White Man. And the White Man knows whats best for “minorities”.
No Delacrat, we don’t, then why do we believe that it is only through us that they can be protected.
Pandora, you are putting words in my argument that I have not made.
I do not believe that the law in Arizona should be based on religious belief, in my view that then puts the business owner’s religion on trial. I believe that the owners have the right to refuse service, end of statement.
You keep forgetting that I am the conservative who believes in the total separation of church and state.
As for Libertarian views, well yes I guess this may be seen that way, but in my case small “l” not capital “L”.
To Dave’s question, ” Would you propose that they establish their own bakeries? Build their own apartments? Create their own clothing stores? How about their own drinking fountains?”
So Dave, who are they? Do you believe that every white owner would discriminate against minorities? Is every white person a racist in your view? And yes, if a dumb ass owner wanted to put up such signs, let them, then I and you and Pandora can avoid supporting them. The way it is now we may be supporting racist without knowing it, and who knows where they send their earnings, maybe even to the KKK. The light of day is what drove racist underground, the images of dogs attacking children in the streets of the south. Now these people are still racist but we don’t know them anymore for what they are.
Can you not imagine that every network would have a camera truck in front of the first business to put up such signs? They would be known around the nation for the racist they are, not the pretend good citizen and neighbor they now pretend to be.
You envision a mad rush to discriminate, I envision a few throw backs. But more importantly I envision laws that restrict private ownership removed.
“I believe minorities are ill served by these laws,” – F. Knotts
“Of course. Frank’s a White Man. And the White Man knows whats best for “minorities”.” – delacrat
“No Delacrat, we don’t, “– F. Knotts
As evidenced by the first statement above, Frank thinks he does.