Will the Right Eventually Openly Dump the Constitution?

Page 7 of 9 [ 138 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Mar 2011, 1:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Didn't occur to me that ruveyn could work in that way.

He's got a vote and a voice doesn't he? He's also a member of an inordinately influential voting demographic and anti-tax sentiments are on the rise nationwide, he might get his way yet. I imagine that "like it or leave it" will have lost some of it's appeal as a catch phrase if that were to come to pass...

Inordinately influential group? My vote counts the same as your vote. One person, one vote.

ruveyn

See the Tea Party, it is an influential group and it was made up of people.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

15 Mar 2011, 9:39 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

It's too hard, is with no explanation of what might hinder it, is not an argument. Any major change in government policy is hard, you don't think baring a private sector from discrimination laws wont be political?

You speak from the perspective of the idealist.

The reality is that government is way to political to get anything done the way it should. You'd have to have a supermajority with a common belief in how something should be who can push something through without amendment and make it so that later amendment cannot be done. That rarely happens. As a result, no "reform" ever bears useful benefit by the time the politicians are done tinkering with it.

These conditions apply to your suggestions as well, it seems to me that you are ignoring that people will never allow a repeal of discrimination law especially when it comes to charity, it would just be said that you are trying to cut off aid to needful minorities(and yes I know this is not your intention), and considering thats what it would look like, it wouldn't be done. If you want a food welfare program you will need to reform the current one or come up with a better alternative, it will not be eliminated in favor of your suggestion.

Quote:

Private sector charities are not subject to discrimination laws unless they take government money. If I want to give $1,000 to help only black kids in need, that's discriminatory, but that's my right as a private charity. So long as people fund my organization, I can refuse to give aid to Hispanics, Asians, whites, etc.

This is just false, even if they do not take federal money they would not be allowed to discriminate by race, sex etc. Although your example likely wouldn't be prosecuted it would still be illegal.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

16 Mar 2011, 7:15 am

ikorack wrote:

This is just false, even if they do not take federal money they would not be allowed to discriminate by race, sex etc. Although your example likely wouldn't be prosecuted it would still be illegal.

Then explain these charities that operate absent any litigation against them...

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (African-American Only)
National Urban League – N.O. (African-American Only)
UNCF/The College Fund (African-American Only)

Asia Foundation (Asian Only)
Asia Society (Asian Only)
Asian-American Legal Defense & Education Fund (Asian Only)

Hispanic Scholarship Fund (Hispanic Only)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (Hispanic Only)

Discrimination in private charities is 100% legal. Even on racial/ethnic grounds.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

16 Mar 2011, 8:45 am

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

This is just false, even if they do not take federal money they would not be allowed to discriminate by race, sex etc. Although your example likely wouldn't be prosecuted it would still be illegal.

Your argument is basically because the crime is socially accepted and not prosecuted it is legal, which makes no sense, the law reflects social values but it does not bow to them until changed.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

16 Mar 2011, 9:23 am

ikorack wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Your argument is basically because the crime is socially accepted and not prosecuted it is legal, which makes no sense, the law reflects social values but it does not bow to them until changed.

You argue from error.

Either something is legal or it is not. It is LEGAL for a private charity to discriminate in who they choose to help. It might not be MORAL, but it is LEGAL.

Your position that discrimination is wrong is a moral argument, not a legal one.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

16 Mar 2011, 11:00 am

ikorack wrote:

Your argument is basically because the crime is socially accepted and not prosecuted it is legal, which makes no sense, the law reflects social values but it does not bow to them until changed.

You are using the word, "crime," uncritically. There are many acts that are not legal but they are not crimes.

The law encompasses both public and private law, and even within public law, criminal law is only one small part of the larger public law sphere.

_________________
--James

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

16 Mar 2011, 11:31 am

ikorack wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Your argument is basically because the crime is socially accepted and not prosecuted it is legal, which makes no sense, the law reflects social values but it does not bow to them until changed.

I'm confused. Are you saying it's illegal but never enforced or are you saying it should be illegal?

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

16 Mar 2011, 1:51 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

The majority of the poor in the states aren't dead broke like the left makes em out to be, so all that "We can't leave em to crawl in an alley somewhere and die" stuff is just sensationalism:

Do you deny the existence of people who would be on the streets without some kind of wellfare? People who are too ill, either physically or mentally to support themselves? I think you're pretty clueless.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

16 Mar 2011, 1:55 pm

I am saying it is illegal whether or not it is prosecuted. I am not saying that discrimination is illegal either zerg, I am stating that certain discrimination is illegal don't confuse the etc with every form of discrimination the list was limited to certain discrimination prevented by American law, I assumed you would be able to tell from the context. I don't recall bringing morality into this, could you explain?

visagrunt wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Your argument is basically because the crime is socially accepted and not prosecuted it is legal, which makes no sense, the law reflects social values but it does not bow to them until changed.

Racial discrimination is a crime. Or is that just incorrect for some inane reason? Does it require a specif title to be called a crime? Or would you prefer if I just used the term illegal activity?

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

16 Mar 2011, 2:08 pm

xenon13 wrote:

When the government's official policy is that there must be a Reserve Army of Labour, the unemployed, and that this army must be a certain size at a given time, and then the government resolves to make sure that those in its Reserve Army of Labour are living as uncomfortably as possible and as close to subsistence as possible presumably to deter people from being part of this Reserve Army of Labour that they themselves created as a matter of policy, well, that's very, very wrong. Making people live as uncomfortably as possible is punishment... punished for being caught in a trap that the government policy created.

Do you have any real evidence that NAIRU is a conspiracy set up by all the wealthy elites to benefit themselves while punishing workers? A huge chunk of employers are privately owned small businesses. Are all of these small business owners who aren't necessarily extroardinarily wealthy somehow in on the NAIRU conspiracy? I'm not trying to be too sarcastic here. I just prefer to see evidence of claims.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

16 Mar 2011, 2:08 pm

ikorack wrote:

Racial discrimination is a crime. Or is that just incorrect for some inane reason? Does it require a specif title to be called a crime? Or would you prefer if I just used the term illegal activity?

Racial discrimination may be a moral crime, but unless it is codified in written law, it is not a legal crime.

I think abortion is a moral crime, but the written law sets specific boundaries where it is not a legal crime to perform one.

Because you think something is wrong no matter what does not make it so in a court of secular law.

Discrimination on the basis of economic affluence is immoral, but it has always been so. Your feelings or my feelings to the contrary will not make it a legal crime to so discriminate.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

16 Mar 2011, 8:47 pm

ikorack wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Your argument is basically because the crime is socially accepted and not prosecuted it is legal, which makes no sense, the law reflects social values but it does not bow to them until changed.

Racial discrimination is a crime. Or is that just incorrect for some inane reason? Does it require a specif title to be called a crime? Or would you prefer if I just used the term illegal activity?

How about using the term unethical or immoral? Illegal means against the law, period. He isn't using the word crime uncritically, you are using the word illegal which isn't even the right word for your definition.

@ marshall: I wasn't talking about em and I think I've stated in the past multiple times that welfare is appropriate for those who absolutely need it. But those who are wasting their money on things they don't need aren't the ones who aren't gonna crawl into an alley and die without government assistance.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

17 Mar 2011, 5:38 am

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

Racial discrimination is a crime. Or is that just incorrect for some inane reason? Does it require a specif title to be called a crime? Or would you prefer if I just used the term illegal activity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

I would say a charity qualifies as serving the general public. Discrimination based on economic affluence isn't illegal and I never claimed it was. Racial discrimination is illegal I don't know what backa**wards education you got that would skip over this act.

@Ace see above.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

17 Mar 2011, 8:39 am

ikorack wrote:

I would say a charity qualifies as serving the general public.

Read the Act.

Not one title addresses private charities. At most, Title VI could apply IF that charity accepts federal funding....and even then it might be limited to programs that federal funding pays for.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

17 Mar 2011, 9:39 am

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

I would say a charity qualifies as serving the general public.

I said, "I would say a charity qualifies as serving the general public" although I suppose I should have said as accommodating the public, see title 2. Although yes title 6 would apply if the charity was taking federal funds, that wasn't the argument I was making.

EDIT: My argument is largely based upon private charities usually operating some kind of day care or community center as well as other operations that could be interpreted as 'public accommodations'

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

18 Mar 2011, 7:27 am

ikorack wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

ikorack wrote:

I would say a charity qualifies as serving the general public.

Again, read the act.

Title II only applies to stuff serving the general public if it is in the stream of interstate commerce. A day care is not. Now, there's nothing saying a state law could not impose legal duties on a charity, but that would only be so within a state.

You also need to recognize that when I endorse a charity "discriminating" I'm talking about the power to say yea/nay on giving benefits on purely subjective judgment rather than needing to "prove" someone isn't eligible for help...letting the case manager follow their gut instinct if someone asking for help is scamming the charity versus having legitimate needs. Government-run charities aren't allowed to do this, and scammers can exploit it.

As a rule, most private charities do not discriminate on the basis of race/color/creed, but legally they are allowed to give aid to whomever they wish, even if it's exclusive to a given race, nationality, color, gender, etc.

Page 7 of 9 [ 138 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Will the Right Eventually Openly Dump the Constitution? Post Reply New Topic

Will the Right Eventually Openly Dump the Constitution?