Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion

[SpheresOfBalance]

i asked a christian fundamentalist print shop owner if she would print posters for a big gay orgy

she laughed and asked if i were going to host one - i said no, just a theoretical question

yes she would

however, she would not do it for satanists or neonazis

Kala, I hope you've realized by now, that I say things only to make points, that may cause one to think from another perspective, I am not, nor have ever been, a devil worshiper, or sympathizer. Obviously, anyone that wants to take any life, save their own, is a coward, and either extremely misguided, or psychotic. The point was that many people live in such luxury, especially Americans, relatively speaking, and yes, I'm one, that they either forget or never knew what it's like to be ostracized. And that's what we're talking about, being caused to feel less that the rest, shoved out into the cold, often for something we cannot control, yet we all have in 'common,' that we shall die, and nothing we can do to each other, shall change that!

[Blaggard]

i asked a christian fundamentalist print shop owner if she would print posters for a big gay orgy

she laughed and asked if i were going to host one - i said no, just a theoretical question

yes she would

however, she would not do it for satanists or neonazis

Yeah one has to have some standards.

[henry quirk]

"there is another aspect to this that i am surprised no one is bringing up"

Speakin' only for me: it wasn't germane to my point, that being (again), the owner/operator of a business can sell what he or she likes, to whoever he or she likes.

Either a person owns his or her *property or he or she doesn't.

*shrug*

But since you raised the subject...

"so the state's concern should not be micromanaging everyone's lives - but preventing eggregri0us widespread discrimination against particular groups that were victims of such discrimination - and the 1960s civil rights laws accomplished that"

Yeah, with some justification, you can argue civil rights laws were for the good, but (I have no citations to offer here...just goin' from memory) others can argue (and have) that a dynamic black economy was killed on the vine because of those laws.

Black communities, prior to the legal redress/address of civil rights legislation, had thriving businesses, owned and run by blacks for blacks customers.

Much of that business (as unintended consequence) got starved out when blacks were afforded a license (and, almost an obligation) to shop with the whites.

Also: there was no monolithic stance among blacks when it came to civil rights law…that is: not all blacks were in favor of such laws…many favored 'separate but equal' (not surprisingly, it was black business owners who took that position, understanding the law was surely gonna screw their pooch).

Again: I'm goin' from memory on this and have nuthin' to cite.

I'm sure, though, some one lookin' to prove me wrong will be glad to research the subject and shove 'fact' in my face and down my throat.








*fundamentally, a person's first, best, property is him- or her-self...it's only through the exercise of that first, best, property that any other property can be secured and used, so, at heart, my point is: a person owns (possesses) him- or her-self...any encroachment on that self-possession is -- for some -- a kind of violence that could (perhaps, should) be met in kind

[SpheresOfBalance]

"there is another aspect to this that i am surprised no one is bringing up"

Speakin' only for me: it wasn't germane to my point, that being (again), the owner/operator of a business can sell what he or she likes, to whoever he or she likes.

Either a person owns his or her *property or he or she doesn't.

*shrug*

But since you raised the subject...

"so the state's concern should not be micromanaging everyone's lives - but preventing eggregri0us widespread discrimination against particular groups that were victims of such discrimination - and the 1960s civil rights laws accomplished that"

Yeah, with some justification, you can argue civil rights laws were for the good, but (I have no citations to offer here...just goin' from memory) others can argue (and have) that a dynamic black economy was killed on the vine because of those laws.

Black communities, prior to the legal redress/address of civil rights legislation, had thriving businesses, owned and run by blacks for blacks customers.

Much of that business (as unintended consequence) got starved out when blacks were afforded a license (and, almost an obligation) to shop with the whites.

Also: there was no monolithic stance among blacks when it came to civil rights law…that is: not all blacks were in favor of such laws…many favored 'separate but equal' (not surprisingly, it was black business owners who took that position, understanding the law was surely gonna screw their pooch).

Again: I'm goin' from memory on this and have nuthin' to cite.

I'm sure, though, some one lookin' to prove me wrong will be glad to research the subject and shove 'fact' in my face and down my throat.








*fundamentally, a person's first, best, property is him- or her-self...it's only through the exercise of that first, best, property that any other property can be secured and used, so, at heart, my point is: a person owns (possesses) him- or her-self...any encroachment on that self-possession is -- for some -- a kind of violence that could (perhaps, should) be met in kind

Yes, for some, fear, runs deeply indeed, such that they imagine all kinds, of connections.