I recently made a comment to a post of Booman’s named “Dinner Denial is a Warning” (<http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2018/6/24/112248/490>) A number of commenting people were all in a twitter about how the neocentrist press was downplaying the the righteous importance of the Red Hen affair and others. Something smelled a little…off…about the whole “Why…we are OUTRAGED!!!!!!” thing, so I wrote a comment on it. Here it is.
############################################################################################
29 posts and counting, all agreeing that the owners of establishments that refuse to serve people that they find morally abhorrent have the right to do so.
Make that 30. I agree. If I owned a jazz club and found that these people were attending it I would also throw them out/refuse to serve them.
But…where does one draw the line? Apparently the line is drawn at the point where you agree with the moral stance of the owners/disagree with the moral stance of the patrons who are refused service. So…what happens if someone who has a different moral line than do you refuses to serve people on “moral” grounds? Like the bakers and the recent gay wedding cake foofaraw. I do not discriminate against gays and I find it disgusting. But did the baker not have a right to express his own views in that way? Is a puzzlement. A puzzlement for which I have no answer. Enlighten me, please.
And while we’re at it…many of the posts above are clouting the New York Times as a useless piece of yellow journalism shit. I also agree, and have said so on this blog and others hundreds of times for going on 20 years. My usual line is something like “It’s only good for the recipe columns, and you have to watch your step even with those.” My own final awakening to the sins of the Times came when it took part in the anti-Howard Dean/pro-John Kerry plot that foreshadowed the way HRC got rid of Bernie Sanders in 2016…followed by Kerry’s cowardly retreat in the face of Republican vote fraud. “FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!!!” trumpeted the neocentrist media…including the NY Times. Even earlier, when the Times supported an obvious CIA asset…Judith Miler…in the whole Iraq “YELLOWCAKE!!!” fiasco that led directly to Bush II’s Blood For Oil War. But where were y’all when it was supporting Obama, HRC and the other neocentrist Dems for the past however many years? Oh yes…it agreed with you then and it apparently does not agree with you now.
You simply cannot have it both ways.
Unless of course…it’s all political posing.
All smoke and mirrors.
On all sides.
Then?
Feel free.
Just as I will feel free to continue to call you out.
Sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander as well.
Unless it’s all bullshit.
Carry on…
AG
Arthur, your life has not been affected one iota for the worse whether the President was Obama or Trump. That much is apparent.
Many others do not have the same privilege. On behalf of them; gfy.
My “life”…about which you know absolutely nothing…has been massively affected in a negative manner by the ongoing decline of the culture in this country since the assassination years, and that decline is completely the fault of the alien corporate entities (at the very least alien to human feeling or morality and totally profit-oriented) who have bought and sold both the culture and the government.
Deal with it.
I am.
The best ways that I can.
Playing great Pan-American music and writing about that decline.
Deal with that as well.
AG
Lives that are known nothing about never seems to stop you to attack your straw men.
Can this be filed under Arthurs hypocrisy, or would it fit better in Arthurs Galileo complex?
. . . i.e., runs away.
What’s new?
The idea that public accommodations can’t turn away customers “without good reason” goes way back in English common Law (see Blackstone’s Commentaries) and has a long history in US law too. I think it’s a good principle. Choose whom you like to invite into your home, but public accommodations operate under different laws. That ought to apply to restaurants and wedding bakeries alike. On the other hand, if you as an individual want to yell at despicable people in public, go right ahead.
Businesses retain the right to refuse services to patrons under many circumstances; we’ve all seen their posted signs. American case law prevents business from discriminating against protected classes. That’s why businesses can’t broadly refuse business from African-Americans, but can refuse business from the stray sociopaths working for the Trump Administration.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS recently decided that an entire town’s businesses can refuse to serve customers with LGBTQ orientations. That’s among the voluminous evidence that will place this SCOTUS as one of the worst in American history.
But, as Arthur reconfirms here, he is philisophically supportive of denials and reductions of Federal civil rights. To put a more definitive point on it, AG has claimed here many times that African-Americans were better off with segregated schools and neighborhoods, before the Jim Crow laws were torn down.
A group…perhaps better, a cadre…of people on this site have tried everything in their power to discourage criticism of the Democratic Party as it stands today. They automatically downrate such posts and have endlessly attacked several posters as liars, pro-Trump trolls and/or spreaders of Russian propaganda. When effectively rebutted, they simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the same attacks. (Centerfielddj being one of the primary attackers.) This tactic is intended to exhaust the patience of the attacked posters and discourage others from reading or posting similar material. It has worked on a few posters, who have simply given up. It has not worked on me. I initially answered their attacks with attempts at reason. After realizing that this was a total waste of time, I simply stopped replying to them. My comments and articles on this site are my replies. Read what I have to say; consider what they have to say and how it is said, and then make up your own minds. Thank you-AG
Thank you for confirming that your criticism of the Democratic Party is substantially centered on your disappointment that the Democratic Party stubbornly refuses to heed your calls here to allow States and communities to force non-white, non-heterosexual cultural groups back into segregation, drastically inferior social positions, denial of the vote, and unequal physical, educational and financial infrastructures, all hallmarks of the Jim Crow era which you have persistently claimed was actually better for the African-American community.
These are your positions. You’ve defended them often. Among these have been your credulous and repeated defenses of voter ID laws, which have always been very edifying.
You need to keep on describing your visions for Democratic Party “reform”. This is helpful.
Please tell us The Legend Of Cliven Bundy again.
link
link
*P.S. I am going to add the following statement to many of my replies to your “standalone articles” (LOL!) and comments…for the benefit of new readers here. It applies to the comment that replies to as well:
*[ref.]
See my reply above.
It’s all you’re getting.
Why?
Because it’s all you deserve.
AG
It’s all you’re getting.
Why?
Because it’s all you deserve.
Good answer.
Thank you.
AG