I guess the people are also free to blockade you inside your home and prevent you from obtaining food by getting every store you want to go to to ban you in order to kill you off. Freedom! Private property! Mob rule is good!
China blockaded people inside their home recently; it’s not impossible here. Mob rule is pretty crazy.
I just don’t see the defense for your position of “if I don’t want colored people in my grocery store I can kick them out!” Or any other absolute rights of property ownership. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent private property owners from restricting access due to uncontrollable conditions like race, religion, sex, nationality and so on. It’s fine if you discriminate against anyone not wearing a black tie to your fancy restaurant but to say only Jewish people wearing black ties are allowed is not. Even if you didn’t want other people there.
A balance must be struck.
I generally like Jefferson’s quotes. But what does it mean to “attend to too much liberty”? What would that look like? Government intervention and laws restricting liberty seems like how it is attended to.
I’m arguing for balance, not extremism on either side. That is what the law is. Balance.
It is wrong to kill. Your extreme is that it’s wrong to kill, period. But the law is balanced and has exceptions for if you are being attacked or if someone breaks into your home and so on. I only argue the same balance on this topic.
I guess the people are also free to blockade you inside your home and prevent you from obtaining food by getting every store you want to go to to ban you in order to kill you off. Freedom! Private property! Mob rule is good!
You're really reaching for excuses to lick boots.
It would be illegal to blockade someone inside their home. And yeah, if I don't want you in my grocery store I'll tell you to leave.
China blockaded people inside their home recently; it’s not impossible here. Mob rule is pretty crazy.
I just don’t see the defense for your position of “if I don’t want colored people in my grocery store I can kick them out!” Or any other absolute rights of property ownership. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent private property owners from restricting access due to uncontrollable conditions like race, religion, sex, nationality and so on. It’s fine if you discriminate against anyone not wearing a black tie to your fancy restaurant but to say only Jewish people wearing black ties are allowed is not. Even if you didn’t want other people there.
A balance must be struck.
I generally like Jefferson’s quotes. But what does it mean to “attend to too much liberty”? What would that look like? Government intervention and laws restricting liberty seems like how it is attended to.
So you let Pelosi and AOC decide who is a protected class and what freedoms they will or will not deign to permit you.
While arguing for big government by pointing to China as an example of how big government is bad...
You're arguing that little girls should have to look at dick in the dressing room.
I’m arguing for balance, not extremism on either side. That is what the law is. Balance.
It is wrong to kill. Your extreme is that it’s wrong to kill, period. But the law is balanced and has exceptions for if you are being attacked or if someone breaks into your home and so on. I only argue the same balance on this topic.