Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HereInTheHeartland; DManA; Ohioan; nathanbedford; Pelham
You're right, it is not comparable maybe morally but those Civil Rights acts so many GOPe and some here laud are PRECISELY why this photographer today has to do something against his religion

Those acts destroyed freedom of association.

There is a direct line from refusing service over race to refusing service over sexual orientation

seems that way to me...I pinged some who read more on that than do I

91 posted on 08/23/2013 9:43:49 AM PDT by wardaddy (the next Dark Ages are coming as Western Civilization crumbles with nary a whimper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: wardaddy; HereInTheHeartland; DManA; nathanbedford; Pelham
Wardaddy is right. The confusion is created when people judge legislation, not by questions which address the proper allocation of power--the basic foundation consideration as to legislation--but in accordance with their personal wish lists as to how others should behave.

The Left has systematically demonized the concept of "discrimination"--starting as always with their own wish lists, and, as always, ignoring the foundational questions. "Discrimination" used to define the perceptive individual, who would make choices based upon perceived differences. Every free choice that a free man or woman makes, is an act of discrimination. One discriminates when they buy one magazine and not another; one suit and not another; attend one church and not another; marry one girl and not another, whether the basis is looks, personality, devotion, or a combination of many factors; every act involving choice, involves a basis for that choice--the basis on which one discriminates.

The passage of the "Civil Rights" acts took the Socialist/Communist view of the power of Government, to dictate once personal choices to the people, to the furthest extent yet accomplished.

But actually, Wardaddy understates the situation. They not only outlawed racial preferences in employment or other forms of business dealings; they denied the right to exercise religious preferences as well--as well as the right to prefer rooted Americans over others. This is now taking the "principle" to a logical conclusion. Yes, it finally offends the sensibilities of those who were not offended when their own ideas of how others should manage their affairs were being forced on those others. People need to get back to the basic, foundational principles. The situational relativism will otherwise destroy us.

One other note. The Civil Rights Acts make it actually "illegal," for White employers to do what Booker T. Washington, the true champion of American Negro interests asked them to do; and that was, to first hire the race that had shared America with them for generations, before the new immigrants. His request was a legitimate one, whether or not you agree with it. Should Congress under LBJ's demands, have outlawed it? Does anyone think that maybe we need to reevaluate this whole concept?

For those interested here are some links to further discussion on the real issue:

Booker T. Washington Address.

"Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.

"Civil Rights" are rights created by Government. They should not be confused with Civil Liberties, which are basically God given rights that the Government acknowledges.

William Flax

92 posted on 08/23/2013 10:28:16 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: wardaddy

As I heard a number of clueless people say on radio during the Massachusetts gay marriage debate...”I don’t see how it will interfere with my marriage.” Hey, clueless ones, they will use it to interfere with ANYTHING they want!


103 posted on 08/23/2013 2:10:09 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson