PDA

View Full Version : Hidden Camera Footage ff A Gay Couple In Texas will Shock You



Cigar
02-14-2013, 12:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ6UF-3rNDI&feature=player_embedded


Kinda remarkable :wink:

oceanloverOH
02-14-2013, 01:24 PM
Wow....my eyes were really opened by this Candid Camera-type scenario (I didn't realize at first that the family and waitress were actors). It really bites that there are still states in which a restaurant can legally refuse service to gays; that's just so much BS. I don't agree with this lifestyle....but I defend their right to live it. The one guy nailed it: "Don't judge. That's it."

Thanks, Cigar. An interesting commentary on how everyday people from a small town feel about this issue.

Cigar
02-14-2013, 01:38 PM
Wow....my eyes were really opened by this Candid Camera-type scenario (I didn't realize at first that the family and waitress were actors). It really bites that there are still states in which a restaurant can legally refuse service to gays; that's just so much BS. I don't agree with this lifestyle....but I defend their right to live it. The one guy nailed it: "Don't judge. That's it."

Thanks, Cigar. An interesting commentary on how everyday people from a small town feel about this issue.

It just goes to show, politicians don't speak for most of their constituents ...

It's like over 80% of the polled in Kentucky ... want Gun Background Checks ... Mitch McConnell is dead against it.

Chloe
02-14-2013, 05:51 PM
That was a really cool video. First off the note that the guy wrote for that one family made me cry watching it, that was completely awesome. It was great to see people stepping up to defend them like that. It's just a shame that more people didn't. It's also a shame that so many states can still deny service to them. Great video though, very eye opening. They are human beings. They aren't damaged or perverted or any other cruel label.

Adelaide
02-14-2013, 06:22 PM
I'm glad that it sort of busted some myths about the "Conservative" south and the "Liberal" Northeast.

When I went to prom in high school I went with a gay friend of mine, (who is very open and very flamboyant - a bit of a stereotype but he's who he is and I love him like family). There was a skinhead there with one of my classmates and he went off on my friend for being an abomination and a disgusting human being. My friend was absolutely horrified and I had to speak up and tell the fucker off. I'm surprised I didn't make the guy go off because I was less than pleasant telling him where to shove his opinion. I couldn't believe someone would say those things, nonetheless at a public event in front of hundreds of people. If you want to have an opinion on homosexuality, fine, but don't be a jackass to people.

Mister D
02-14-2013, 06:55 PM
It just goes to show, politicians don't speak for most of their constituents ...

It's like over 80% of the polled in Kentucky ... want Gun Background Checks ... Mitch McConnell is dead against it.

They already have them, silly. Why did you lie about owning a firearm? If you owned a firearm you would know that you undergo a background check each time you purchase them. Again it's called the gun show loophole for a reason.

Mister D
02-14-2013, 06:58 PM
I'm glad that it sort of busted some myths about the "Conservative" south and the "Liberal" Northeast.

When I went to prom in high school I went with a gay friend of mine, (who is very open and very flamboyant - a bit of a stereotype but he's who he is and I love him like family). There was a skinhead there with one of my classmates and he went off on my friend for being an abomination and a disgusting human being. My friend was absolutely horrified and I had to speak up and tell the fucker off. I'm surprised I didn't make the guy go off because I was less than pleasant telling him where to shove his opinion. I couldn't believe someone would say those things, nonetheless at a public event in front of hundreds of people. If you want to have an opinion on homosexuality, fine, but don't be a jackass to people.

I would not mistreat anyone but I can't hang with a guy who has the mannerisms of a woman. I grew up with a gay man and we were close when we were teens but after he moved to NYC he became increasingly feminine.

Chris
02-14-2013, 07:48 PM
It just goes to show, politicians don't speak for most of their constituents ...

It's like over 80% of the polled in Kentucky ... want Gun Background Checks ... Mitch McConnell is dead against it.

And that has what to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing. Not popular opinion polls about guns, and not even politicians speaking for constituents. Much as I would abhor seeing such discrimination--he'd lose my business, and likely yours, and others' here, but, other than restrict itself from such discrimination, it is not the business of government to decide this for the private owner of a restaurant who has a right to decide whom he serves and whom he does not for any reason whatsoever.

Mister D
02-14-2013, 07:52 PM
And that has what to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing. Not popular opinion polls about guns, and not even politicians speaking for constituents. Much as I would abhor seeing such discrimination--he'd lose my business, and likely yours, and others' here, but, other than restrict itself from such discrimination, it is not the business of government to decide this for the private owner of a restaurant who has a right to decide whom he serves and whom he does not for any reason whatsoever.

In my experience, this is usually where the conversation breaks down. Progressives cannot conceive of any reason why you would support the rights of a business owner unless you hated blacks, gays or whoever else is the object of discussion.

Chris
02-14-2013, 07:56 PM
In my experience, this is usually where the conversation breaks down. Progressives cannot conceive of any reason why you would support the rights of a business owner unless you hated blacks, gays or whoever else is the object of discussion.

Yep, I recall a similar speech by Rand Paul taking such flak. Well, it's out there, taking on all comers. :evil:

Mister D
02-14-2013, 08:00 PM
Yep, I recall a similar speech by Rand Paul taking such flak. Well, it's out there, taking on all comers. :evil:

This forum has been good though. I've been places where it such a discussion can't take place.

Chris
02-14-2013, 08:08 PM
This forum has been good though. I've been places where it such a discussion can't take place.

That's true.

Dr. Who
02-14-2013, 11:30 PM
And that has what to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing. Not popular opinion polls about guns, and not even politicians speaking for constituents. Much as I would abhor seeing such discrimination--he'd lose my business, and likely yours, and others' here, but, other than restrict itself from such discrimination, it is not the business of government to decide this for the private owner of a restaurant who has a right to decide whom he serves and whom he does not for any reason whatsoever.

All people are created equal - that is the foundation of America. Then there is also the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. As a restaurant, you have the right to refuse service based on dress code, or behavior but not for race, religion or any other personal prejudicial factor, except perhaps in Texas, and I expect that any victim of the latter in Texas may have a Constitutional reason for action, because Constitutionally you are violating that person's civil rights.

Chris
02-15-2013, 05:57 AM
All people are created equal - that is the foundation of America. Then there is also the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. As a restaurant, you have the right to refuse service based on dress code, or behavior but not for race, religion or any other personal prejudicial factor, except perhaps in Texas, and I expect that any victim of the latter in Texas may have a Constitutional reason for action, because Constitutionally you are violating that person's civil rights.

Those apply to government, not private citizens. Look at the Constitution, it enumeration limited powers and restrictions on government, not the people. Free speech the government cannot interfere with, certainly, but that doesn't mean I must listen.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 04:26 PM
Those apply to government, not private citizens. Look at the Constitution, it enumeration limited powers and restrictions on government, not the people. Free speech the government cannot interfere with, certainly, but that doesn't mean I must listen.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "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."

Chris
02-15-2013, 04:35 PM
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "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."

It limits government from doing that, not people.

Who, you go everything backwards. The Constitution, amendments, that act do not grant rights to people, they limit government from violating those unalienable rights.

Suggest you read the documents, carefully. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th amendment:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See the words, they prohibit government from abridging, depriving, denying people their rights.

They do not grant rights, they do not prohibit people from exercising their rights.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 04:50 PM
It limits government from doing that, not people.

Who, you go everything backwards. The Constitution, amendments, that act do not grant rights to people, they limit government from violating those unalienable rights.

Suggest you read the documents, carefully. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th amendment:



See the words, they prohibit government from abridging, depriving, denying people their rights.

They do not grant rights, they do not prohibit people from exercising their rights.

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Case_citation) (1964), is a United States Supreme Court (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case in which the Court held that Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Congress) acted within its power under the Commerce Clause (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Commerce_Clause) of the United States Constitution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution) in forbidding racial discrimination (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Racial_discrimination) in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Interstate_commerce). The ruling was a 9–0 decision in favor of the plaintiff—the United States government. Wikipedia

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 04:59 PM
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Case_citation) (1964), is a United States Supreme Court (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case in which the Court held that Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Congress) acted within its power under the Commerce Clause (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Commerce_Clause) of the United States Constitution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution) in forbidding racial discrimination (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Racial_discrimination) in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Interstate_commerce). The ruling was a 9–0 decision in favor of the plaintiff—the United States government. Wikipedia

This has also been broadened by an EEOC April 2012 ruling in Macy vs the Department of Justice:

The Department of Justice has accepted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's April 20 ruling (http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7288) that claims of gender identity discrimination are a type of sex discrimination that is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a ruling that could set in motion a series of changes in the way transgender people are treated by the federal government.


This ruling may be accepted as precedent in civil law.

Chris
02-15-2013, 06:37 PM
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Case_citation) (1964), is a United States Supreme Court (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case in which the Court held that Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Congress) acted within its power under the Commerce Clause (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Commerce_Clause) of the United States Constitution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution) in forbidding racial discrimination (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Racial_discrimination) in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Interstate_commerce). The ruling was a 9–0 decision in favor of the plaintiff—the United States government. Wikipedia

Nice that you can find the commerce clause stretched to the breaking point. Exceptions prove the rule.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 06:59 PM
Nice that you can find the commerce clause stretched to the breaking point. Exceptions prove the rule.
It did nevertheless spell the end to "Whites Only" restaurants, refusing blacks in hotels, etc. even if States didn't enact their own laws.

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 07:24 PM
From 1937 until 1995 SCOTUS let everything Congress wanted to do pass under the Commerce Clause. They have started to tighten it up in US v. Lopez (1995) and even more so under Obamacare (2012).

Chris
02-15-2013, 08:24 PM
It did nevertheless spell the end to "Whites Only" restaurants, refusing blacks in hotels, etc. even if States didn't enact their own laws.

Right, but as you yourself have demonstrated, in citing amendments and laws, it was unconstitutional, not to mention judicial activism in creating law the court is not mepowered to do. Undermining the law this way leaves it no foundation to stand on.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:04 PM
Right, but as you yourself have demonstrated, in citing amendments and laws, it was unconstitutional, not to mention judicial activism in creating law the court is not mepowered to do. Undermining the law this way leaves it no foundation to stand on.
I understand what you are saying, but getting 2/3 consensus is a difficult thing to do, particularly when you have to deal with partisanship. How do you right a wrong, when people will even vote against their own principles simply to obstruct another party?

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:08 PM
I understand what you are saying, but getting 2/3 consensus is a difficult thing to do, particularly when you have to deal with partisanship. How do you right a wrong, when people will even vote against their own principles simply to obstruct another party?

What specifically is the wrong?

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:10 PM
What specifically is the wrong?

Perhaps you don't agree with the notion of equal rights?

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:12 PM
Perhaps you don't agree with the notion of equal rights?

I don't agree with the concept of equality at all. I think it's patent nonsense. That said, what specifically is the wrong?

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:15 PM
I don't agree with the concept of equality at all. I think it's patent nonsense. That said, what specifically is the wrong?
And who do you suppose should be the arbiter of rights?

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:17 PM
And who do you suppose should be the arbiter of rights?

What specifically is the wrong in question? If you were to answer that then I could perhaps answer your question.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:24 PM
What specifically is the wrong in question? If you were to answer that then I could perhaps answer your question.
Wrong, is to simply deny basic rights to people simply because you are prejudiced based on their ethnicity, race, their gender or their sexuality, which is a simple emotional bias, not based on any knowledge of the individual, but a generalization, usually founded in zenophobia or some other like phobia.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:35 PM
Wrong, is to simply deny basic rights to people simply because you are prejudiced based on their ethnicity, race, their gender or their sexuality, which is a simple emotional bias, not based on any knowledge of the individual, but a generalization, usually founded in zenophobia or some other like phobia.

You have a "basic right" to the property of someone else?

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:36 PM
You have a "basic right" to the property of someone else?
If you offer your property to the public.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:37 PM
BTW, if I tend to be wary in a black neighborhood do you really mean to tell me I suffer from a "simple emotional bias"?

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:37 PM
If you offer your property to the public.

Should I not be at liberty to offer my property to whomever I please?

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:43 PM
Should I not be at liberty to offer my property to whomever I please?
Not under the law. Besides, money is money. What is a patron, but money in your bank account. A prejudiced business owner is a poor businessman. Biting off your nose to spite your face.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:46 PM
BTW, if I tend to be wary in a black neighborhood do you really mean to tell me I suffer from a "simple emotional bias"?
Not every black neighborhood is identical. If you are referring to those that are poverty ghettos, you may have reason. You would have reason in any poverty ghetto. If you are in a middle class black neighborhood and you are wary, that is about you and not the neighborhood.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:46 PM
Not under the law. Besides, money is money. What is a patron, but money in your bank account. A prejudiced business owner is a poor businessman. Biting off your nose to spite your face.

The law is immaterial. It's argument from authority.

That may be but it's none of your business. That's the point certain members are trying to make to you.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:47 PM
Not every black neighborhood is identical. If you are referring to those that are poverty ghettos, you may have reason. You would have reason in any poverty ghetto. If you are in a middle class black neighborhood and you are wary, that is about you and not the neighborhood.

You be wary of the same neighborhoods I would be wary of.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 09:49 PM
You be wary of the same neighborhoods I would be wary of.
The point being it is poverty that creates the danger.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 09:50 PM
The point being it is poverty that creates the danger.

Does it? There are neighborhoods in NY State and the deep south that I haven't felt threatened. The element just wasn't there.

Dr. Who
02-15-2013, 10:08 PM
The law is immaterial. It's argument from authority.

That may be but it's none of your business. That's the point certain members are trying to make to you.
In what realm is the law immaterial? It is reality. Do you suppose that these laws will be repealed and people will go back to the "good old days" of slavery and/or discrimination? Hardly likely when the white birth rate is so low the population of whites is shrinking. Population shrinkage requires immigration, and not all qualified wouldbe immigrants are white. In terms of your ideal world, that ship has sailed. The population of the planet is transient. Like it or not, society is becoming more pleuralistic.

Mister D
02-16-2013, 09:06 AM
In what realm is the law immaterial? It is reality. Do you suppose that these laws will be repealed and people will go back to the "good old days" of slavery and/or discrimination? Hardly likely when the white birth rate is so low the population of whites is shrinking. Population shrinkage requires immigration, and not all qualified wouldbe immigrants are white. In terms of your ideal world, that ship has sailed. The population of the planet is transient. Like it or not, society is becoming more pleuralistic.

I'm not sure how how and why you went from the topic at hand to immigration. Anyway, we are not discussing what the law is. Hey, slavery used to the law. Did that make slavery reasonable, right etc? of course not. It's not a logical argument nor a persuasive one. Secondly, it's patently ridiculous for you to claim anyone desires to return to slavery because they object to desegregation. I won't dignify those remarks any further. Third, we are still a segregated country even after decades of intensive government propaganda and media control by groups desiring integration. No, Doc, that ship sank. When the economy really tanks look out. There's going to be trouble because Americans will no longer be bribed into acquiescence.

Now I'll address your off topic remarks. We don't need immigration and we certainly do not need tens of millions of grade school educated mestizos. When you parrot the official lies do you ever stop to think about them? Secondly, the population is not transient. That was a silly comment.

Chris
02-16-2013, 09:33 AM
I understand what you are saying, but getting 2/3 consensus is a difficult thing to do, particularly when you have to deal with partisanship. How do you right a wrong, when people will even vote against their own principles simply to obstruct another party?

2/3 consensus wouldn't matter a whit you cannot rewrite the Constitution in such a way as to deprive citizens their rights, and that's what SCOTUS did in the case you cited. Remember, the 14th explicitly states you cannot deprive citizens their property, that's what SCOTUS did.


How do you right a wrong...

Explained when I stated my position initially. Because I abhor discrimination I would not do business with that restaurant, nor would you, nor would many of us. A society powerful enough to create a government is powerful enough to deal with this.

Alif Qadr
02-16-2013, 09:51 AM
Wow....my eyes were really opened by this Candid Camera-type scenario (I didn't realize at first that the family and waitress were actors). It really bites that there are still states in which a restaurant can legally refuse service to gays; that's just so much BS. I don't agree with this lifestyle....but I defend their right to live it. The one guy nailed it: "Don't judge. That's it."

Thanks, Cigar. An interesting commentary on how everyday people from a small town feel about this issue.

It has always been and should remain the right of a business to deny anyone service in their establishment. Of course, if the business owner is the one to initiate and establish such a policy, that is his or her or even their decision. It is not however, the right of a person who happens to work at said establishment to initiate their own set of rules as well as standards for the establishment in question. This is inappropriate behavior and should not be tolerated, unless said employee has the backing of the business owner(s). Besides, why would a customer assume that ti is tier right to establish their own standards and principles? I know that if I had a business and established that persons dressed in a particular manner cannot frequent my establishment, I would take umbrage at a customer or an employee taking it upon themselves to violate the rules that I have established as their concern my business. I did not force the person(s) to visit my establishment so therefore they must abide by the norms that I have set if he, she or they wish to remain patrons.
Regardless to what government establishes as protocol, it is my business and I have the freedom, liberty and right to operate it as I see fit as long as my practices are not physically harming another nor depriving them of what is rightfully theirs.

Alif Qadr
02-16-2013, 10:08 AM
Frankly, the common sentiment of people and discrimination has gone too far in all reality. As it has been stated, it is no one's concern, other than the business owners as to what they allow within their establishment as well as whom they choose to hire as well as to allow patronage from. The rights, freedoms and privileges are to be held as sacred, regardless to whom or what. As far as discrimination is concerned when ti comes to businesses, why would a sensible person want to patronize an establishment where they are not welcomed? Their is too much forcible permissiveness that people are become accustomed to in this country. Once people begin to allow government to forcibly enact their will, in violation of the supreme law that is the Constitution for the United States and theme of enshrined liberties and freedoms which are natural rights or birth-rights, tyranny is soon to follow.

Chris
02-16-2013, 10:17 AM
Alif Qadr, we see eye to eye. http://i.snag.gy/SSa2j.jpg

Alif Qadr
02-16-2013, 10:34 AM
Alif Qadr, we see eye to eye. http://i.snag.gy/SSa2j.jpg

What can I say, save that I only apply sense to living? In other words, I state things as I perceive them.

Chris
02-16-2013, 11:05 AM
What can I say, save that I only apply sense to living? In other words, I state things as I perceive them.

Well, some are emotional and some are rational in applying sense to what they perceive.

Dr. Who
02-16-2013, 06:20 PM
I'm not sure how how and why you went from the topic at hand to immigration. Anyway, we are not discussing what the law is. Hey, slavery used to the law. Did that make slavery reasonable, right etc? of course not. It's not a logical argument nor a persuasive one. Secondly, it's patently ridiculous for you to claim anyone desires to return to slavery because they object to desegregation. I won't dignify those remarks any further. Third, we are still a segregated country even after decades of intensive government propaganda and media control by groups desiring integration. No, Doc, that ship sank. When the economy really tanks look out. There's going to be trouble because Americans will no longer be bribed into acquiescence.

Now I'll address your off topic remarks. We don't need immigration and we certainly do not need tens of millions of grade school educated mestizos. When you parrot the official lies do you ever stop to think about them? Secondly, the population is not transient. That was a silly comment.
I don't parrot so called lies. I object to segregation. I believe people are people. Differences are interesting, not frightening.
The world is more transient than you think it is - globalization has seen to that. http://rt.com/usa/news/leaving-us-america-country-289/ So if you both have low white birth rate and emigration, who will be left to pay the taxes?
As much as you may enjoy racially/ethnically polarized neighborhoods there are others, at least in urban or suburban areas who are not so particular. Some (like me) even enjoy multicultural environments - I happen to live in just such a neighborhood. The changing dynamics of the country will more than likely produce more, not less diversity in neighborhoods. Old zenophobic ideologies continue to diminish with each successive generation. As more people leave the US for opportunities and are influenced by the places they have lived and more people are required from foreign lands to fill the gap, the country will become more ethnically diverse. This is happening everywhere in the 1st world.

ptif219
02-16-2013, 06:25 PM
Wow....my eyes were really opened by this Candid Camera-type scenario (I didn't realize at first that the family and waitress were actors). It really bites that there are still states in which a restaurant can legally refuse service to gays; that's just so much BS. I don't agree with this lifestyle....but I defend their right to live it. The one guy nailed it: "Don't judge. That's it."

Thanks, Cigar. An interesting commentary on how everyday people from a small town feel about this issue.

A business does not have to serve you

ptif219
02-16-2013, 06:28 PM
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "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."

A privately owned facility has the right to refuse service to anyone

Dr. Who
02-16-2013, 06:35 PM
2/3 consensus wouldn't matter a whit you cannot rewrite the Constitution in such a way as to deprive citizens their rights, and that's what SCOTUS did in the case you cited. Remember, the 14th explicitly states you cannot deprive citizens their property, that's what SCOTUS did.

Explained when I stated my position initially. Because I abhor discrimination I would not do business with that restaurant, nor would you, nor would many of us. A society powerful enough to create a government is powerful enough to deal with this.
The reason that perhaps subterfuge was even necessary is that people fail repeatedly to do the right thing, even when they know they are witnessing a wrong. It's far easier to maintain the status quo, whether that results in the unequal status of some or not. If you are a minority, it is difficult to overcome the emotionalism of the majority.

Chris
02-16-2013, 06:59 PM
The reason that perhaps subterfuge was even necessary is that people fail repeatedly to do the right thing, even when they know they are witnessing a wrong. It's far easier to maintain the status quo, whether that results in the unequal status of some or not. If you are a minority, it is difficult to overcome the emotionalism of the majority.

It's not your place nor government's to force people to do the "right" thing--I scare quote that because it's your strange definition of right and rights you want enforced. I appreciate you're attempt to shift the topic, but the argument here is not whether people are moral, but whether government has been empowered to force "morality" on us.

Mister D
02-16-2013, 07:29 PM
I don't parrot so called lies. I object to segregation. I believe people are people. Differences are interesting, not frightening.
The world is more transient than you think it is - globalization has seen to that. http://rt.com/usa/news/leaving-us-america-country-289/ So if you both have low white birth rate and emigration, who will be left to pay the taxes?
As much as you may enjoy racially/ethnically polarized neighborhoods there are others, at least in urban or suburban areas who are not so particular. Some (like me) even enjoy multicultural environments - I happen to live in just such a neighborhood. The changing dynamics of the country will more than likely produce more, not less diversity in neighborhoods. Old zenophobic ideologies continue to diminish with each successive generation. As more people leave the US for opportunities and are influenced by the places they have lived and more people are required from foreign lands to fill the gap, the country will become more ethnically diverse. This is happening everywhere in the 1st world.

Sigh...I see you can't seem to resist poisoning the well. Like most progressives, a rational discussion of these matters simply isn't possible. Fear? Xenophobia? Polarization? I no longer feel obilgated to be respectful.

The world's population is not transient. That was a ridiculous comment. The way you parrot the propaganda you've been spoon fed by big business is truly amusing given your progressive politics. That you are clueless to the effects globalization has on the people you are so fond of is utterly unsurprising. It's all about you getting to eat at cool ethnic restaurants and getting to pat yourself on the back for being a multicultural hipster, right?

Secondly, you may object to segregation but it is a reality of American life whether you like it or not. Cool urban hipsters like yourself are a rarity. Indeed, the US is likely to become ever more diverse (although segregation will continue). Along with your cherished diversity, however, (I'd ask you what you find so great about it but I won't because you don't know) will come an increase in poverty, greater gaps in wealth and education, an increase in crime, further environmental damage, and an overall decline in the quality of life for all Americans. Sounds great! Who will pay the taxes? Not grade school educated Mexicans that's for sure.

Yes, it is happening across the developed world and it causing a great deal of tension across the developed world. Worse still, it's only happening in the developed world but a small segment of that world has embraced an ideal (i.e. diversity) that is counter-intuitive and self-destructive. I doubt you've ever seriously considered it. You're like a parrot that's been kept in a room with big business moguls, Jewish sociologists, and the diversity apparatchiks from an American university.

Mister D
02-16-2013, 07:36 PM
The reason that perhaps subterfuge was even necessary is that people fail repeatedly to do the right thing, even when they know they are witnessing a wrong. It's far easier to maintain the status quo, whether that results in the unequal status of some or not. If you are a minority, it is difficult to overcome the emotionalism of the majority.

Please try to overcome your own emotionalism.

Dr. Who
02-16-2013, 10:58 PM
Sigh...I see you can't seem to resist poisoning the well. Like most progressives, a rational discussion of these matters simply isn't possible. Fear? Xenophobia? Polarization? I no longer feel obilgated to be respectful.

The world's population is not transient. That was a ridiculous comment. The way you parrot the propaganda you've been spoon fed by big business is truly amusing given your progressive politics. That you are clueless to the effects globalization has on the people you are so fond of is utterly unsurprising. It's all about you getting to eat at cool ethnic restaurants and getting to pat yourself on the back for being a multicultural hipster, right?

Secondly, you may object to segregation but it is a reality of American life whether you like it or not. Cool urban hipsters like yourself are a rarity. Indeed, the US is likely to become ever more diverse (although segregation will continue). Along with your cherished diversity, however, (I'd ask you what you find so great about it but I won't because you don't know) will come an increase in poverty, greater gaps in wealth and education, an increase in crime, further environmental damage, and an overall decline in the quality of life for all Americans. Sounds great! Who will pay the taxes? Not grade school educated Mexicans that's for sure.

Yes, it is happening across the developed world and it causing a great deal of tension across the developed world. Worse still, it's only happening in the developed world but a small segment of that world has embraced an ideal (i.e. diversity) that is counter-intuitive and self-destructive. I doubt you've ever seriously considered it. You're like a parrot that's been kept in a room with big business moguls, Jewish sociologists, and the diversity apparatchiks from an American university.
Actually I don't frequent many restaurants, so your argument is not on point. I do however try to cook various different ethnic foods as I enjoy a broad variety of food. I am not a multicultural hipster. My friends and family come from various ethnicities and races and I care about them very much, so I am very comfortable with diversity. My point of view does not come from elitist educators or appartchiks, it comes from my own life.