"Judge: Bars are allowed to throw out Trump supporters"
(too old to reply)
2018-04-27 13:57:23 UTC
Not so much as you think. The bar owner has the right to
choose whom he
will serve in his bar, that is his moral and ethical right.
That does
Bullshit. A business owner has an obligation to run the
business according
the laws we impose on ourselves. When the law outlaws some kind of
discrimination, the business cannot discriminate in that way.
In this case the law appears to allow the bar owner to refuse to
one person but not another. How is such a law just?
Because it is the law and not in conflict with the Constitution.
1. to declare that a law is just, because it is the law, strikes
me as a clear example of circular reasoning.
2. The Judge ruled based upon New York city and State law.
The truth is that the Constitution governs the relationship
between government and the people, not between individuals. This
is the biggest issue with the Civil Rights Act and any other such
law. We all agree that the racism of Jim Crow America was a bad
thing. However in seeking to fix a bad situation, and to allow all
access to everything our nation has to offer, we trampled the
rights of an unpopular minority, and that is no more right than
the racism of Jim Crow.
What unpopular minority is having their rights trampled on?
You forgot to address this question.
There are several groups who can be considered to be unpopular
minorities, among them are conservative Christians and white racists.
Conservative and liberal Christians, as well as conservative and liberal
non-Christians are equally protected.  White and black racists are
equally protected as well.
I think you probably meant to say that racists aren't equally protected,
and they aren't when they run places of public accommodation.  That
seems fine to me.
Violating the rights of some Americans that you disagree with is OK....?

But when you do that you destroy the integrity of the Constitution and
become a *GOOD HITLER* or in other words you want to be a FASCIST WITH A
HEART. You want to decide what people can and can't think and control
their personal property so it can only be used with your approval.

Then the problem arises of a real Hitler being in power and then he will
have a different idea of what you can think and a different plan for how
you use your property? The laws can then be corrupted as Obama corrupted
them, and the corrupted Constitution has no basis to stop the bad
because it was already corrupted to allow you to mandate the things you
wanted because you think they are good. Which means that the
Constitution you corrupted for your GOOD HITLER can also be used to
mandate what a BAD HITLER wants. The equality is out the window and
factions will just use it to get whatever they want when they gain
control enough to do it, because they too can ignore the Constitutions
RIGHTS and promise of equality.
That's Karma
2018-04-27 14:10:18 UTC
The judge got this one partially correct. Where he went wrong is the
idea that the bat owner can throw people out of his establishment
for political opinions. Morally and ethically, the owner of any
establishment open to the public, has the right to throw people out
of his bar for any reason, including members of those groups being
granted special protection by the government.
Private businesses are permitted to discriminate as they wish as long
as it does not discriminate against a protected class (race,
religion, gender...and apparently now sexual orientation). Like it or
not, the judge got it right. Political opinion in a private
establishment is not protected. If this was a govt run establishment,
then it would be a different story.
"Permitted to discriminate"? That phrase is the crux of the issue.
Where does the Constitution give government the right to permit or to
not permit discrimination between private citizens?
The Commerce Clause.
We have already covered this, remember?
"The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power
under the Commerce Clause to enact the prohibitions
on discrimination contained in the public accommodations
section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
And Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court recently ruled that Congress
had *NO* power under the Commerce Clause to mandate commerce.

"The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely
because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Justice
Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing
Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"

Apparently you can't use the COMMERCE CLAUSE to mandate COMMERCE but you

That Limitation means that forcing someone to rent a room to someone
they don't want to rent the room to is violating their RIGHT to NOT
engage in commerce.

And the 14th Amendment only requires that States apply their laws
equally and doesn't allow for mandating equality between two private
That's Karma