quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

I would point out that white European culture is not the only way to a civilized society. China, Japan, and other parts of Asia have done pretty damn well. Their societies are different, to be sure, and we might prefer our way, but you can't say that China, for example, didn't produce a very functional civilization.

We could get into details, but in case you forgot, my family is 1/2 Chinese. THey too are very rightfully proud of their culture.
But let's look at the last 100 years: I can safely say that American culture (and to the extent that means "White, judeo-Christian culture") is SUPERIOR.

I am on a campaign to use the word "superior" as much as possible, because White people are being cowed into feeling guilty for what is a factual, historical, superiority.
But "recognizing factual superiority" is not something to be ashamed of and does not imply that I "hate" anyone else or want to hold anyone else down or deprive them of any rights. It simply means that I a demanding my right to factually recognize factual history and scientific facts.
I am not a "White supremacist" in the racist connotation of the word, but I do recognize many aspects of White superiority.
Are they really "factual" ?
Well, whether they are or not, I still have A RIGHT TO MY OPINION.

There is a rising and gathering problem. A significant percentage of the population believes in collective condemnation. They do not recognize individual accountability and responsibility. Those same people have been poisoned with distorted history. So logically to them, an identifiable subset of society did a bad thing therefore all who share characteristics are bad and must pay/suffer.

An example is white Europeans stole this land from natives and Mexico. Therefore all whites owe all minorities and can be discriminated against to equalize the circumstances. In this case the history is distorted and the condemnation is not only collective but intergenerational. This perversion of justice applies unjustly guilt to millions of innocents and allows those guilty of crime to escape.

This is just one facet of the wave of genocide building if it is not resisted forcefully. Other facets are rejection of due process and dismissal or dilution of other constitutional rights/ bill of rights.

It is a problem stalking our six.

ETA: I encourage all to read and study about the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo.

We have discussed this topic here before.
To reiterate and summarize: I accept and even sometimes favor private discrimination; I oppose government discrimination of any kind. The difference is between private association and equality before the law.

I thought my sarcasm was obvious and don’t criticize my grammar, that’s racist and I blame everything on auto correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:... but it appears perfectly acceptable to discriminate based on a persons political ideology?

So you really want the US Supreme Court to decide that "political ideology" can be considered a protected class?

What could possibly go wrong then?

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
So you really want the US Supreme Court to decide that "political ideology" can be considered a protected class?

I want the only "protected class" to be "American citizens". That was the whole reason for "America". All equally protected ....by the clear words of the Constitution.

quote:

I want the only "protected class" to be "American citizens".

I think Crom and I are saying the same thing. It's equality before the law. If some are more equal than others, if government is allowed to discriminate, then there is no rule of law. Everything becomes arbitrary and based on who is in power.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:... but it appears perfectly acceptable to discriminate based on a persons political ideology?

So you really want the US Supreme Court to decide that "political ideology" can be considered a protected class?

What could possibly go wrong then?

I'd personally like the entire government (including SCOTUS) to recognize the term and concept of a "protected group/class" as both unconstitutional/illegal and as such, a completely unacceptable discriminatory practice for government to steer clear of. There should be 'zero' protected classes or groups in 21st century America.

It might be incredible unpopular or deemed extreme on my part, but I don't think any private business owner should have to conduct business with 'any' person or group they do not wish to. Black, female, homosexual, LGBTFYIUOPUNI*$&^#, blue eyed white Scandinavian, liberal, conservative, etc, it doesn't matter. Its solely up to the business owner to decide who they want as a clientele. As for government, they shouldn't go within 1,000 miles of the issue. We're a weak, sick, childish, society for constantly meddling in this BS. Its way past time to grow up.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

Well, whether they are or not, I still have A RIGHT TO MY OPINION.

That goes without saying. We all have a right to an opinion. Which, along with $1 will get you a cup of coffee.

(I agree with you on much of what you say, mind you.)

quote:

I'd personally like the entire government (including SCOTUS) to recognize the term and concept of a "protected group/class" as both unconstitutional/illegal and as such, a completely unacceptable discriminatory practice for government to steer clear of. There should be 'zero' protected classes or groups in 21st century America.

I agree. The government should not be allowed to discriminate. The laws must apply equally to all. Equality before the law.

quote:

It might be incredible unpopular or deemed extreme on my part, but I don't think any private business owner should have to conduct business with 'any' person or group they do not wish to. Black, female, homosexual, LGBTFYIUOPUNI*$&^#, blue eyed white Scandinavian, liberal, conservative, etc, it doesn't matter. Its solely up to the business owner to decide who they want as a clientele.

I also agree. That's private discrimination. The government ought not be able to discriminate, but individuals can.
When I meet with a prospective new client, I don't have to take them, for any reason , or no reason at all. I may not like how they look; I may not like their attitude or whatever, but it's none of the government's business.

We all discriminate. When you go out on a date with a woman you are discriminating. It's probably on the basis of looks, it could be on the basis of race, or even money or perceived social status. When I discriminate as an individual it's none of the government's business.

Agree with no discrimination by .gov and arbitrary discrimination by businesses. The “We reserve the right to refuse service.” signs used to be quite common. If a business discrinates in a way that folks don’t appreciate, said folks are free to use their first amendment rights and boycott/protest. If a business is truly unreasonable, the business will suffer for it. If it is the protestors who are unreasonable, folks may flock to support the business as happened with Chik-til-A. That suffering should be exacted by the free market though, not by the government.

I believe everyone has the right to be offended about anything they like. I just don’t believe they have the right to have anyone else give a crud about their feels.

way too much common sense being typed in here...

Half the country (LA County and NY city for instance) will hate everything you folks are saying. Minding your own business isn't very common anymore.