Just more proof of what the ultimate intent of the 1964 [Civil Rights Act] was originally intended to do. Oh sure, there was some cool neato shit about blacks at a lunch counter. Yeah, we got the memo on that(check) and the after school specials Roots and The Color Purple and all that other gay ass shit, sure, but bottom line the 1964 CRA was a trojan horse.
Ever since the civil rights BULLSHIT, there has been no such thing as personal private property rights. Now the government uses the 1964 CRA as a battering ram to do whatever it wants all to defend 'the little guy' or Kunte Kinta or now some bleating queer.
IF you happen to be a landlord, you are now officially NO LONGER the owner of said property. No. You are now a partner with the federal government. They have guidelines against discrimination and if you cross them, you can be liable civilly and punitive action can be taken against you.
IF you are a business owner, you are now officially NO LONGER the owner of said business. No. You are now a partner(*ahem* SUBJECT) of the federal government. Through their state run organs of the EEOC they can tell you what you can and cannot do, who you can and cannot serve, who you can and cannot hire(quotas) and who you can and cannot fire(wrongful term/discrimination).
No more trauma has been done to our freedoms combined than this one law of emotive crap and it affects everything we do. There are no more personal property rights for those laws are all under subservience to the 1964 CRA.
Now the faggots want to use the same whiny banner to walk under. No surprise there. According to the 1964 CRA, these mayors are correct. They can ban Chic-Fil-A. They can probably file a class action. That is what the law was intended to do and that is what it was for. To control society at every level.
Wyatt Junker, Where Liberty Dwells 34 Comments
[8/9/2012 3:15:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 50
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog
No one's banning Chik-fil-a. You can keep eating their shitty chicken and believing in their shitty values all you want.
8/9/2012 3:39:03 AM
"Gay ass shit", "battering ram", "state run organs", and "faggots". Why Wyatt, if I didn't think you were a bigot, I would think you had a fascination with phallic words and suggestive phrases that suggest interest in anal sex and possibly fellatio. Poor Wyatt, so many sexual curiousness and no real outlet that is acceptable to you.
8/9/2012 3:41:07 AM
Filin De Blanc
Damn that evil government forcing Wyatt to act like a decent human being on occasion!
8/9/2012 3:44:39 AM
Yes, because when you rent to that faggot or hire the nigger, the government takes your profits from their rent or your earnings from their labor.
8/9/2012 4:05:02 AM
What an asshole.
8/9/2012 4:31:34 AM
Hey, Wyatt. I think Liberty has fucked off from there, dude.
8/9/2012 4:32:17 AM
The South will rise again!
. . . nearly as successfully as the last time, I bet.
8/9/2012 4:32:25 AM
Oh no! You can only ban or fire people who have actually done something wrong to your business! Teh HORROR!!!
The law was intended to force everyone to respect human rights. Teh HORROR!!!
8/9/2012 4:46:14 AM
All these problems started when congress passed the 13th and 14th amendment in 1866.
8/9/2012 5:12:01 AM
You do still own and control your rental property. If you don't want to rent to minorities or gay people, then don't offer it as rental property. But if you offer it as a rental to the public, then you have to offer it to EVERYONE.
Same goes for businesses. If you offer service to the public, then you should have to offer it to EVERYONE. Hell, I'm a libertarian and I agree with this. True, you can still kick people out for theft, causing problems, etc, but I don't agree with refusing service to people based on skin color. But then again, I believe that gay or black people's money spends just as good as everyone else's.
And no, Chick-Fil-A is not in danger of being shut down, unless they start putting up signs that say "No gays."
8/9/2012 5:46:09 AM
Do you sing hymns with that mouth, Mr. Junkheap? I'll bet you're a real hit at parties (not).
8/9/2012 6:07:42 AM
If you fuckers had your way black people and homosexuals would starve to death or die of pneumonia out on the streets. It's because of morons like you and others who would deny service to someone based on the color of their skin or their sexual orientation that we even need anti-discrimination laws. As much as I believe in the libertarian ideal on a philosophical level, on a practical level I know the world has way too many bigots and scumbags and so we need regulation. Otherwise what's to stop let's say a food or clothing company from getting a monopoly and then denying service to all "queers" or black people or Jews or, hell, even Christians?
8/9/2012 6:21:00 AM
ah, now the Texas GOP platform plank about the CRA makes sense.
8/9/2012 6:25:17 AM
And this hateful little tirade is not even wrong.
8/9/2012 7:39:41 AM
DevilsChaplain"According to the 1964 CRA, these mayors are correct. They can ban Chic-Fil-A."
N-no, they can't...they really can't.
Here, I'll even give you a right-wing web site
that carries the details.
8/9/2012 8:53:37 AM
What LDm saud. BTW, Chik-fil-A sucks. Their food is bland, gross, and often has hairs. That's why I stopped eating there like two years ago.
8/9/2012 8:54:06 AM
"oh god I can no longer do whatever I like, heeelp"
8/9/2012 10:58:36 AM
No one forces you to open up a business or rent out property. If your bigotry is so thick you cannot STAND abiding by the rule of law in those practices, then you can simply choose not to do them.
8/9/2012 11:37:59 AM
Where Liberty Dwells? Not under Wyatt's bigotry
8/9/2012 11:58:37 AM
"Bigot politics for $500, please."
"Ok: 'Wyatt Junker'."
"I know, I know: 'He voted for Ron Paul'."
If God existed, he'd let this asshole wake up one morning as a black male in Mississippi in 1954.
8/9/2012 12:20:23 PM
White Supremacist, KKK - take your pick.
8/9/2012 2:36:23 PM
Without Chick-Fil-a there life would be worthless.
8/9/2012 3:03:40 PM
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
- G.K. Chesterton: The Man Who Was Thursday
8/9/2012 3:28:16 PM
No, the mayors that wanted to ban Chick-Fil-A were wrong. To do so as a government representative would be a violation of the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech.
However, individuals or companies that chose to boycott Chick-Fil-A are within their rights. As a matter of fact the boycott is a form of Freedom of Speech.
The 1964 CRA has nothing to do with the whole Chick-Fil-A issue.
8/9/2012 5:45:10 PM
8/9/2012 6:54:52 PM