Ruling on racist "white only" pool sign stands

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Montoya, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. Montoya

    Montoya Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,274
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I guess we don't need the civil rights act anymore according to the cons. I mean, society has moved past racism and segregation according to our "liberty loving" friends. But wait whats this? I though the civil rights act was outdated and "oppressive"? Will the **********s support this unconstitutional and illegal pool owners actions? Most likely.

     
  2. Defengar

    Defengar New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    6,891
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank god for common sense.
    What the hell was that woman thinking?
     
  3. AceFrehley

    AceFrehley New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,582
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The guy is a nut. And what you're trying so desperately?

    [​IMG]
     
  4. WatcherOfTheGate

    WatcherOfTheGate New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,520
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would rather know who is racist. Why hide it? It makes it easier to know who to (*)(*)(*)(*) with.
     
    drj90210 and (deleted member) like this.
  5. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    As a libertarian, I stand with Ron Paul's views regarding the Civil Rights Act. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate how a private citizen runs his/her business.

    It is not "outdated," but it is clearly oppressive: Why can't a private citizen run his/her private business as he/she sees fit?

    If the public is outraged (as they should be) over the racism, then people will stop going to her pool (especially in an area with a 45% Black population). The free market will take over, and someone will open a pool that allows access to people of all skin colors, hence leading the racist pool owner's business to fail.

    Her actions are illegal (due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964), but clearly not unconstitutional. In fact, it is the Civil Rights Act that is unconstitutional.

    Have you read the Constitution? I doubt it. I guess it's just far easier to unjustifiably demean the "**********s," right?

    I also find it comical that you left-wingers are so holier-than-thou regarding this issue of race relations, and yet its folk like you that vehemently support racist institutions like affirmative action, which is nothing more than a racist system of advantage supported by the government and universities. Talk about hypocrisy.
     
  6. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good ruling. I hope that woman has lost a lot of business over this. She should be ashamed.
     
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect that if you (or Ron Paul) were in any of the groups who would be routinely treated as second-class citizens as a consequence you'd think differently, regardless of libertarianism.

    The same reason private individuals can't do anything they like. Our actions impact other people and government has been granted the role of managing the significant consequences of that impact.

    And if the public wasn't outraged (as they could well be given a significant racist minority and a large "not my problem" majority)?

    I feel your proposal would only serve to feed the undercurrent of casual racism in society and history shows it doesn't take much for that to trigger something much worse.
     
  8. Hanzou

    Hanzou New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um, yes it does. Its the federal government's responsibility via the Constitution to protect the rights of American citizens. Unless you believe (As Ron Paul and other libertarians seem to) that business supersedes the Constitution. As long as businesses enjoy the protection and benefits of government, they are subject to its laws as well.
     
  9. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. The landlord was way over the line and absolutely should be sanctioned in some manner by society.

    But the big question remains, what do we do when certain cultural traits, such as heavy use of flatteners and other harsh chemicals in the hair become a public nuisance to others?
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why I get offended when people try to classify my flavour of Conservative beliefs as Libertarian. In my belief, most Libertarians are only a short step from Anarchists.

    What if every store in a community decides they will no longer sell food to a certain race? What if every landlord decides they will not rent apartments to anybody of a certain race? And if commercial landlords decide they will not rent property to a certain religion?

    Now I am all for free enterprise. I am also all for a business owner having the right to do whatever they want in their business.

    Within reason.

    The problem with racists like that is that they need to be slapped around once in a while. They are to stupid to realize on their own what proper behavior is, so occasionally must be taught again what it is.

    I disagree with quite a few of our "Civil Rights" laws. And it is not that I am against the ideas, as I feel that parts of them have become antiquated over the decades and should be phased out. But I do believe that discrimination is 100% wrong, and in cases like this there should be steps taken, even non-punitive ones to show the landlord they are being a racist ass.

    And the fact that the idiot landlord not only put up the sign, but appealed the first ruleing that she was a stupid ass only makes it more obvious that she is really a stupid stupid ass.

    Because with this kind of thinking, we are only a short step away from this:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  11. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Throughout the Jim Crow era, Governments made laws that made it illegal for Blacks to purchase Coca-Cola.

    Now Coke, being a huge mega corporation even those days, was perfectly capable of lobbying State and Local Governments, to lift the ban on blacks purchasing coca-cola in stores in order to increase their profits.

    Under libertarian thinking, Coca-Cola should've never allowed the Government to deny them all those black customers who were forced to drink Nehi or whatever alternative was available back then.

    Yet, Coca Cola allowed it.. why? The Free Market obviously failed. Coca Cola had the absolute ability to tell State and Local Government officials to go to hell, and to lobby for State and Local officials to repeal laws banning blacks from drinking Coke.

    Why didn't they? Because obviously they didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the profit lost from blacks not drinking coke.

    There are plenty of store owners in America, of all races, who will not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about lost revenue from races they don't like.

    Hispanic Bodegas who see one or two white people a week, are not going to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about losing those 2 white customers if they think that more hispanics will come there if white people are banned.
     
  12. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Liberals can't be serious about this.

    Do they really consider it racist for white to prefer to associate with other whites?
     
  13. Defengar

    Defengar New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    6,891
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its kind of like a little boy making a clubhouse and putting a sign that says "no girls allowed!" out front. Except in this case its an adult and that adult is being a bigot...
     
  14. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then how do you defend the blacks-only Congressional Black Caucus which excludes whites from joining?

    Or do you agree that they are racists too?
     
  15. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good point about chemicals in the pool water. And the truth is that the landlord could have put up a dozen signs forbidding people to go into the pool with any chemicals in their hair, but people with strange crap in their hair would still go right into the pool anyway.

    We have become a lawless people who have no regard for decency to other people, respect for the rights or property of others, or any consideration for anyone besides ourselves. People like that are a nuisance to everyone who has to share the world with them....
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    This entire sexist series should be outlawed.
     
  17. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, your isolated example is proof that racism is commonplace. LOL!

    I agree with the decision, but this is hardly indicative of a trend. How often do you see someone trying to do stuff like this? This is the only story like this I have seen in a YEAR even on this forum. Gimme a break.

    Then the correct sign would have been "No hair products allowed in the pool" or something to that effect. Hair products clearly had nothing to do with why she put up the sign.
     
  18. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course they are racists. But there is a double standard. In this country, it is white racists that have been the oppressors, not the oppressed. We give the oppressed a pass that we do not give to the oppressors.

    Notice I said "white racists" and not "white people". That is because the two are not the same thing.

    All racism is bad. Some types of racism is worse than others though.
     
  19. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked a lib here this question but they failed to respond.

    Maybe you will do better.

    Are the black lawmakers in congress wrong for discriminating against whites and Asians through their segregated blacks-only Congressional Black Caucus?
     
  20. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think that millionaire black congressmen who get insider stock trading tips are oppressed in any meaningful way.

    Nor do I see how we progress to a color-blind society by allowing only blacks to continue the practice of racial discrimination.
     
  21. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. They are not elected. They can congregate based on anything they want as far as I am concerned. Its the equivalent of a private club.

    It isnt segregated because you (or me or anyone else) is not entitled to membership. It isnt a public service.

    Are they wrong morally? Yeah, IMO they are. But black racism is at least understandable, even if I dont agree with it. Black racism is often petty and counter productive and unfair. White racism is evil.
     
    Leo2 and (deleted member) like this.
  22. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many white people would trade places with them?

    Chris Rock used that in his act. He gloated about how he was richer than any white guy at his show. And then he added that NONE of those white guys would trade places with his "black ass" or something like that. Despite the fact that he was rich. It was funny but also a pretty rude awakening.

    And he was right. Thats your answer.
     
  23. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is the legacy of racism in the USA, which is still prevalent in some areas and which has laid a very deep mental scar on the psyche of this nation. You don't go from treating a group of people as domesticated farm animals to treating them as equals in the blink of an eye. Blacks in America suffered generations of discrimination and abuse even after slavery was abolished so two issues need to be confronted.

    1. Is it wrong to try and work to remove some of the damage caused by this history by giving some Black Americans an unfair advantage in some circumstances (affirmative action)? Unlike our Libertarian friend, I would argue it is not wrong, as the Libertarian approach fails to put the bandage on the still suppurating wound history left us.

    2. Is it wrong for some Black Americans to continue considering themselves victims and using that as an excuse not to try harder or as an excuse for bad behavior (the Race Card)? Here I would argue the Black individuals in question are wrong: tougher circumstances does not absolve the individual of the duty of doing what is right. Half the task of getting rid of racism against Blacks in America falls on the shoulders of the Blacks themselves.
     
  24. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It's simple, really. The Civil Rights Act has made descrimination unconstitutional. Surely Ron Paul knows better than that.
     
  25. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's pretty much the definition of racism - treating individuals differently on the basis of racial identification alone.

    There's a element of instinct to associate with people like yourself but the rational mind should recognise that can't be measured on skin colour alone.
     

Share This Page