i'd agree under normal circumstances

but when you have a chance to cement an institutional change by way of something like this, you take it

Quote :

"Woolworth's had the right to do that. And citizens had the right to call them out for being racist douchebags, which they did."

wait, first you're saying let bygones be bygones, then you're saying this. which is it?

10/15/2010 3:29:51 PM

Quote :

"no doubt. but the real issue here is what guy doesnt like to see two women kissing?"

Well, depends. are the chics hot? I don't want to see joy beyhar frenching barbara walters. But Selma hayek playing tonsil hockey with scarlet johanssen I'll watch every day of the fucking week.

^ I'm not saying that people shouldn't have protested an institutional problem. But a random dickweed security guard is hardly an "institutional problem". I mean, really, what "institutional change" is there to made here? A guy was a douche. You know it, I know it, they know it. Just walk away. Now, an entire chain of stores won't serve an entire race of people? That's fucking institutional

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 3:32:04 PM

i know one guy isn't an institutional problem, but making noise about something like this is a way to make sure the institution keeps its employees on the same page in the future

10/15/2010 3:35:02 PM

no it's not. It's a way to show that you are an arrogant prick that thinks everyone should bow down to your different views. Now, if they show up two weeks later and they guy hassles them, then, sure, make a stink. This time? Walk away

10/15/2010 3:36:20 PM

bow down to different views?

the view that everyone should be treated equally?

what a radical concept.

10/15/2010 3:37:24 PM

I kissed a girl and I likedand York Security didn't like it!

10/15/2010 3:41:05 PM

Kinda agreeing with vinylbandit here. I understand and appreciate aaronburro's perspective, especially since he's putting this in a more realistic frame than I think most people are--I think it's a stretch to call this an institutional problem, but I don't think that's even close to proper reasoning to ignore what happened. And even if it isn't institutional, (supposedly) the manager of York Securities felt the same way, which seems to suggest this can and will happen again if someone doesn't MAKE it an issue, and that's what they're doing.

And I don't think it comes down to "two different views"--the Security guard was being discriminatory, not "respectfully disagreeing" with homosexuality (like you can do that to begin with). The issue isn't that he doesn't love homosexuals, it's that he singled them out in what was obviously discriminatory policy. They aren't going to sue to make him think differently, but he sure as hell better act differently.

10/15/2010 3:45:41 PM

no, the view that homosexuality is ok. durrr

10/15/2010 3:45:56 PM

Quote :

"The issue isn't that he doesn't love homosexuals, it's that he singled them out in what was obviously discriminatory policy. They aren't going to sue to make him think differently, but he sure as hell better act differently. "

word word word

10/15/2010 3:48:20 PM

On that note, anyone up for some concrete? Cameron Village in an hour.

10/15/2010 3:50:46 PM

the public is invited on to the property ~ the area is considered public

if it was gated with guards at the gate and patrolling then they probably have enough control to adequately enforce private property rights.

as it is, cameron village technically had the right to do that, but it backfired in their faces.

Quote :

"Discrimination is not acceptable — on public or private property,"

i'll be fucking damned if i get my rights to determine who does or does not have the INVITATION to be on my private property taken or legislated on due to some butthurt folks

10/15/2010 3:51:37 PM

Quote :

"i'll be fucking damned if i get my rights to determine who does or does not have the INVITATION to be on my private property taken or legislated on due to some butthurt folks"

i think people sang this verse about black people in the 50s, too.

besides, they weren't saying "no lesbians allowed"

they were saying "no lesbian kissing allowed"

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 3:53:13 PM

No women can play on our golf tour.

10/15/2010 3:55:41 PM

I want Goodberry's now.

10/15/2010 3:57:50 PM

^Like I said, lets meet up there in an hour.

...but no lesbian couples.

I mean comon' now.

10/15/2010 3:58:54 PM

Quote :

"i think people sang this verse about black people in the 50s, too."

and they were right, then, too.

10/15/2010 3:59:05 PM

there it is

10/15/2010 4:00:43 PM

^^ "right"

10/15/2010 4:02:35 PM

I'd like the court clerk to retract that statement about appreciating aaronburro's perspective.

I claim a motion to replace statement with an attack Mr. Burro's character, perhaps insinuating closet homosexuality.

Also, please add an IMG tag with something like "u mad?"

That is all.

10/15/2010 4:03:26 PM

I thought it was pretty obvious from the get go that the conservatives ITT were dissembling their bigotry under the guise of fighting for property rights.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 4:04:50 PM

wtf? people were right that they have fucking private property rights that allow them to determine who is allowed there? really? That's a horrible thing to say?

I guess next time I want to come over to your place, I don't have to ask permission. I can just come the fuck in and do whatever I want, and you can't ask me to leave

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 4:05:12 PM

Quote :

"i think he meant Fuck your you're old late message_topic.aspx?topic=603442 another thread on same topic"

Yes, this is what I meant; no this is not what I wrote or meant to write. I was parodying/using a pun of the thread title. sheesh you people.

10/15/2010 4:05:28 PM

Quote :

"I guess next time I want to come over to your place, I don't have to ask permission. I can just come the fuck in and do whatever I want, and you can't ask me to leave"

Is her place open to the general public? No. It isn't. I know you love drawing irrelevant comparisons. But you really are making yourself look like a (bigger) idiot.

10/15/2010 4:12:44 PM

you guys better not make aaronburro mad or else he'll throw a beanbag wrapped in yellow cloth at you and then run like a little girl

10/15/2010 4:13:55 PM

^^ it doesn't fucking matter if it's open to the public. It is private fucking property

10/15/2010 4:17:24 PM

well actually, it does. should it matter is a different question.

while i am ecstatic to know that everyone ITT has busted out their pocket constitutions to quote the 14th A, just a mental note that congress has used other areas of the constitution to reach private discrimination (not wholly, of course, see: country clubs and other types of clubs)

1964 civil rights act ---> commerce clause

check it.

i'm not commenting on whether or not this is an appropriate interpretation of the powers of congress, i'm just saying, there's a reason you don't see restaurants and stores prohibiting certain races/gender/etc from frequenting their establishments.

there are several places where congress has used (or stretched, if you prefer that term) its powers (granted in the constitution) to reach private discrimination. and this use/stretch has been upheld by the courts.

so you can shout property rights and 14th A all you want, but application and interpretation are key. and if you look a the last however many years, private or not, the trend has NOT been facilitating discrimination in stores/restaurants/hotels, etc

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 4:19:12 PM

Quote :

"well actually, it does. should it matter is a different question."

I agree, 100%, that the law forbids it in some cases, but that law in unConstitutional, no matter what bullshit reasoning people based it on then. Private property rights are immutable, except in rare circumstances. And a bastardized expansion of the meaning of one tiny clause in the Constitution is not one of those situations.

The right way to fight discrimination is not to ignore the Constitution.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 4:20:12 PM

^^ win.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM. Reason : WHOOPS]

10/15/2010 4:20:22 PM

Haha...I see aaronburro got the same answer that he didn't want to hear in this thread also.

10/15/2010 4:24:44 PM

Quote :

"WNF IV"

Hahaha.

10/15/2010 4:28:26 PM

what, that Congress can ignore the fucking Constitution and pass whatever law they want? Hey, next week I hear they want to say you, OopsPwSrprs, can't drive a car. Don't like it? too bad. They passed the law, sux to be you

10/15/2010 4:32:13 PM

is it ignoring the constitution if that is how the supreme court has interpreted it? its not like congress said "this is how we interpret the constitution so we're gonna do this..." its how the S Ct interpreted it through cases.

honest question

con law is whack. that is why there are con law scholars that dedicate their LIVES to this shit. it hurts my head, to be completely honest.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 4:38:21 PM

Quote :

"I guess next time I want to come over to your place, I don't have to ask permission. I can just come the fuck in and do whatever I want, and you can't ask me to leave"

I'll ask you to leave for causing a disturbance, not because you're gay.

10/15/2010 4:38:36 PM

so, was it right when the SC said that Walmart can take your house if they will pay more taxes? Was it right when the SC said that schools could be segregated as long as they were "equal?"

^ and the difference would be? can't this store just say "they were causing a disturbance," too?

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 4:39:15 PM

i think the terms "right" and "wrong" are big issues here, too. they are pretty much irrelevant.

i think the term to focus on is "can"

CAN ________ do ____________? do they have the power (as vested in this document that no one can agree on how to interpret)

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 4:42:32 PM

ok then, was the SC ignoring the Constitution when it said Walmart can take your house if they will pay more taxes than you? Was the SC ignoring the Constitution when it said separate-but-equal was fine?

10/15/2010 4:44:16 PM

^ You realized that a town in California used Eminent domain to take land from Walmart to keep them from building in their town?

And has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Constitution ambiguous to the point of allowing things that you don't agree with?

10/15/2010 5:04:17 PM

Quote :

"can't this store just say "they were causing a disturbance," too?"

Sure, but according to the article the security guard said they would've been allowed to stay had they been straight.

10/15/2010 5:12:09 PM

I'm glad this nonsense doesn't take place at Felson's where I hang out with my ITB friends.

10/15/2010 5:12:50 PM

it's entirely possible that it is ambiguous. And ambiguity shouldn't mean "i can do this." In fact, it should mean the opposite. If you have to resort to "well, the Constitution doesn't say I can't," then, well, you already have your answer: you shouldn't.

That is one of the biggest problems with our government today. Too many people are trying to twist the Constitution into saying things it doesn't say. Too many people are asking "can we" instead of "should we."

10/15/2010 5:13:25 PM

so "today" to you means...what? literally today or, the last 50 years of precedent?

ambiguity is a good thing. it allows the document to evolve to address problems that weren't and could not have been foreseen by our homeboys in the 1700s.

i agree, that some people are too willing to amend the constitution at the drop of a hat. that is scary. but we aren't talking about that in this situation.

the use of the commerce clause (and other avenues w/in the constitution) to address private discrimination (AGAIN, only SOME, not all of it) isn't a novel idea.

and i also am confused as to how asking "should we" in the case of your viewpoint changes the outcome. "should we allow private discrimination in places of public accommodation?"

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 5:22:38 PM

discussion to be continued at Goodberry's

all parties please follow the Netstorm procession vehicle

10/15/2010 5:24:45 PM

Quote :

"it allows the document to evolve to address problems that weren't and could not have been foreseen by our homeboys in the 1700s. "

entirely false. We are very capable of handling such problems. That's why it can be amended. And it is the proper role and way to do things. Not allowing Congress to bastardize it and just do whatever the fuck they want on a whim

Quote :

"and i also am confused as to how asking "should we" in the case of your viewpoint changes the outcome. "should we allow private discrimination in places of public accommodation?" "

Actually, I got my point backwards in that respect. If you get down to the point where you have to start mixing words as to whether you can, then you already have your answer: you can't.

Quote :

"should we allow private discrimination in places of public accommodation?"

and, actually, that is not how it is framed. it is "should we disallow it." Which is a huge difference. Allowing it gives the proper respect to property rights. Disallowing it pisses all over those rights

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 5:25:58 PM

but you're implying that every time we need to interpret language in the constitution to determine if an action may/not be done, we need to do so through amendment?

i feel like the amendments process gives congress MORE power to do whatever the fuck they want versus congressional action subject to judicial review via cases working their way through the system

actually! i don't want to know the answer. this discussion will NEVER get anywhere haha. this is the exact same shit i sat through in conlaw in law school. i know it is going nowhere because we have totally competing views that we are unwilling to budge on. so i quit.

^ i guess, but i don't know. i don't think it pisses over anything if it is a place of public accommodation. which a restaurant is. its not like someone's house or yard or land.

but i SWEAR TO GOD I'M DONE WITH THIS THREAD. ITS BEEN REAL.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2010 5:32:55 PM

Quote :

"but you're implying that every time we need to interpret language in the constitution to determine if an action may/not be done, we need to do so through amendment? "

if that's what you took from what I said, then allow me to clarify. If it doesn't say you can do it, then you can't. If you still want to do so, then amend it. There is no "interpretation" accomplished through the amendment process.

Quote :

"i feel like the amendments process gives congress MORE power to do whatever the fuck they want"

Only if Congress, itself, can directly pass the amendments... Which it can't do.

Quote :

". i know it is going nowhere because we have totally competing views that we are unwilling to budge on. so i quit. "

you may be right, you may be wrong. I believe in a very limited federal gov't that actually follows the Constitution, to the fucking letter. A literalist, if you will. I'm sure you know what that means.

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 5:38 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 5:37:42 PM

must have been ugly lesbians.

10/15/2010 5:45:33 PM

ANYWAYS

the security dude has been suspended

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/15/742491/cameron-village-management-apologizes.html

10/15/2010 5:50:57 PM

they should legalize pot and gay marriage on the same day so they can get it out of the way and focus on more important matters

10/15/2010 5:55:47 PM

i'm glad to see he was suspended. bigoted douchebags should eventually get what's coming to them

10/15/2010 5:58:06 PM

they should legalize pot and gay marriage on the same day so they can get it out of the way and focus on more important matters

10/15/2010 10:12:00 PM