Posted on 10/30/2012 4:03:12 AM PDT by rhema
Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.
What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.
Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.
What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.
This is getting rather old with you only willing to ask questions, but not answer them.
My position is pretty clear by now, and if you can’t deduce the answer to identical questions from the previous iterations we’re going to be here all week.
But to address your first paragraph, because they were all racist at the time, no such law could ever have been passed or enforced so it’s pretty moot. You might want to look into Reconstruction and what a debacle it was.
I’ll just have to assume you’re OK with a Catholic having to host gay wedding receptions since you’re so focused on dodging an answer.
Then I would have to assume you were OK with no dogs or Irish, discrimination against Catholics and blacks having to ride in the baggage cars based on the same logic.
Do you think being treated as a second class citizen in access to public accomodations (hotels trains restaurants etc) is compatible with the guaranteed right to liberty?
Then I would have to assume you were OK with no dogs or Irish, discrimination against Catholics and blacks having to ride in the baggage cars based on the same logic.
Do you think being treated as a second class citizen in access to public accomodations (hotels trains restaurants etc) is compatible with the guaranteed right to liberty?
As it appears that you don’t care to make this a discussion but rather a series of accusations, I think I’ll take a pass. Either you don’t get my point, or are being obtuse. I’m not going to waste any further time trying to deduce which is more likely as it is not worth my time.
(See Thomas Sowell's discussion of the matter in a 2005 townhall.com column.)
For my own part in the legislation defining "public accomodations" I would draw a distinction between bed-and-breakfast accommodations in which the owners are renting parts of their own home (or its grounds for receptions) and those in which the area rented to the public is not part of their residence or its grounds, applying non-discrimination laws to the latter, and offering maximum latitude to the proprietors' freedom of association in the former. (Similarly for church owned halls -- if the hall is on the same property as the parish and used for religious purposes at all, freedom of association should apply, while if it's down the block and only used for rentals, it's a public accommodation.)
thanks! and I agree.
from Up From Slavery.....
“At one time Mr. (Frederick) Douglass was travelling in the state of Pennsylvania, and was forced, on account of his colour, to ride in the baggage-car, in spite of the fact that he had paid the same price for his passage that the other passengers had paid. When some of the white passengers went into the baggage-car to console Mr. Douglass, and one of them said to him: “I am sorry, Mr. Douglass, that you have been degraded in this manner,”
Mr. Douglass straightened himself up on the box upon which he was sitting and replied: “They cannot degrade Frederick Douglass. The soul that is in me no man can degrade. I am not the one that is being degraded on account of this treatment, but those who are inflicting it upon me.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.