Well, you do realize that we dumbfucks, white whiners, Neo-Nazi, Nazi types do have our shortcomings. Unlike you, whose soaring prose lifts discussions-- originally about the worth of someone's accomplishments in a sport-- to scholarly heights.Worth noting: you referred to me--and not in positive terms--as "Whitey" and as a "white whiner". I guess that's your positive way of bringing race into the discussion. I can only imagine the well deserved negative response in these posts if I had referred to you as Blackie or as a black whiner.That's something this dumbfuck would never stoop to But unlike you, I'm apparently bereft of erudite ways of bringing race into the discussion. If I've seen the best you've got, we were done long ago.
Desegregation is not propagated in Israeli media. It is propagated by Jewish controlled media in America. Desegregation destroys the Black race the same as it does the White race. How about some "Diversity for Israel"?
Here we see again the huge blind spot that all capitalism loving people have. In order for a free market to be fair, everyone had to have equal knowledge. For instance, if i roll into an unfamiliar area for the first time, I won't know which businesses to avoid because the owner is a vile disgusting bag of protoplasm. Therefore, I may inadvertently support said bag, whereas, if I had known I would have avoided the establishment.
If desegregation has been a success why do we have hysteria over racism 24/7? That doesn't sound like it's been entirely a success.
Maybe because assholes like you has been fighting it tooth(in several cases actual singular) and nail for ever? If people would quit with the racist bullshit, there would be no talk of racism. This is not rocket surgery.
It's both. Yes it's about reinforcing a social order of "us > them" but it also devalues the needs of that particular group (aka "you're not worth my time or money".)
Replying here since the reply you posted that I thought was interesting, received by mail, is not showing up on Disqus.1. "The Commission was required to engage in a balancing of interests, i.e., the baker’s right to the free exercise of his sincere religious beliefs and the interests of the State in prohibiting discrimination against the customers by a place of public accommodation". Do we know this was the charge of the commission? Sounds more like what Kennedy wanted the charge to be. (I'll just mention in passing the absurdity of the criterion "sincere religious beliefs" - it is not the point I'm trying (failing) to make, but certainly speaks to the political rather than logical or legalistic nature of the decision.)The majority is saying the balancing act failed because some commissioners were impolite (although as I've noted correct on historical facts cited), in other words because of an imputed state of mind, "hostility on the part of the State"; I'm saying you would need to demonstrate how the failure to balance was expressed in the decision text itself.Thought experiment - if the commissioners' statements were not made, would that have changed the outcome? What would the SC have used then as a basis of determining proper exercise of the Commission's charge? How will courts in future cases evaluate "hostility"? See what I'm getting at now?
2. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be de- termined in an adjudicatio n in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach.". This is the majority assuming one or two commissioners' comments constituted "hostility on the part of the State". I assume they also claim it was significant hostility (an eye-rolling at claims of religious exemption would presumably not invalidate a factual finding of discrimination?). I see no basis for that. More to the point, how would you know if the hostility was significant except by examining whether it was expressed in the ruling.3. "In that role, the Commission was no more permitted to base its decision on disdain ... than it would be entitled to base the decision on prejudice against gay people." You say it yourself - was the decision based on disdain? All I saw was an expression of disdain, which Kennedy took and ran with all the way to the end zone. Not any demonstration that that disdain was determinative of the decision. That was a huge leap by Kennedy. Unsupported by reference to the decision itself. I'm saying any disdain the commissioner's might or might not hold is irrelevant except insofar as it comes to expression in the decision, which should be evident in the text of the decision.
Look at my 'terrorist and judge expressing disdain of religious motivations for terror' analogy. I think it holds up.
(And of course I reject that pointing out factual historical points where religious beliefs were used to justify horrible actions actually constitutes disdainful expression, but that's a separate question.)So to me clearly a botched job of defending basic principles by muddying the waters with irrelevant imputations regarding the minds of the commissioners, rather than closely reading the terms of their finding (and subsequent Colorado actions in the case). Unfortunate, even dangerous, for the reasons cited in other posts. Expect "hostility" imputed to legislation and commissions to figure in many conservative judges future rulings. They'll conveniently ignore the robust defense of discrimination law in the ruling. So ultimatelyI'm questioning how narrow this "narrow" ruling will turn out to be.
Well, you do realize that we dumbfucks, white whiners, Neo-Nazi, Nazi types do have our shortcomings. Unlike you, whose soaring prose lifts discussions-- originally about the worth of someone's accomplishments in a sport-- to scholarly heights.Worth noting: you referred to me--and not in positive terms--as "Whitey" and as a "white whiner". I guess that's your positive way of bringing race into the discussion. I can only imagine the well deserved negative response in these posts if I had referred to you as Blackie or as a black whiner.That's something this dumbfuck would never stoop to But unlike you, I'm apparently bereft of erudite ways of bringing race into the discussion. If I've seen the best you've got, we were done long ago.
Desegregation is not propagated in Israeli media. It is propagated by Jewish controlled media in America. Desegregation destroys the Black race the same as it does the White race. How about some "Diversity for Israel"?
Here we see again the huge blind spot that all capitalism loving people have. In order for a free market to be fair, everyone had to have equal knowledge. For instance, if i roll into an unfamiliar area for the first time, I won't know which businesses to avoid because the owner is a vile disgusting bag of protoplasm. Therefore, I may inadvertently support said bag, whereas, if I had known I would have avoided the establishment.
How to spot a racist:
If you consistently get upvoted by people with a comment history rich in Jew, kike, faggot and other niceties you just might be a little nazi wannabe.
If desegregation has been a success why do we have hysteria over racism 24/7? That doesn't sound like it's been entirely a success.
Maybe because assholes like you has been fighting it tooth(in several cases actual singular) and nail for ever? If people would quit with the racist bullshit, there would be no talk of racism. This is not rocket surgery.
https://scontent.fosl1-1.fn...
Maybe it`s more a case of "I know it when I see it" rather than a pinned down academic definition. You certainly seem to tick off a lot of boxes.
You are an ignorant, racist POS.
Have a great day!
https://i.imgur.com/5tRl187...
I guess that you forgot that we fought the Japanese.
You forgot that we fought the Japanese.
http://www.azquotes.com/pic...
It's both. Yes it's about reinforcing a social order of "us > them" but it also devalues the needs of that particular group (aka "you're not worth my time or money".)
Ultimately in South Africa, it was bad for the white people.
Are you seriously asking this or is this a joke I've not heard of?
Replying here since the reply you posted that I thought was interesting, received by mail, is not showing up on Disqus.1. "The Commission was required to engage in a balancing of interests, i.e., the baker’s right to the free exercise of his sincere religious beliefs and the interests of the State in prohibiting discrimination against the customers by a place of public accommodation". Do we know this was the charge of the commission? Sounds more like what Kennedy wanted the charge to be. (I'll just mention in passing the absurdity of the criterion "sincere religious beliefs" - it is not the point I'm trying (failing) to make, but certainly speaks to the political rather than logical or legalistic nature of the decision.)The majority is saying the balancing act failed because some commissioners were impolite (although as I've noted correct on historical facts cited), in other words because of an imputed state of mind, "hostility on the part of the State"; I'm saying you would need to demonstrate how the failure to balance was expressed in the decision text itself.Thought experiment - if the commissioners' statements were not made, would that have changed the outcome? What would the SC have used then as a basis of determining proper exercise of the Commission's charge? How will courts in future cases evaluate "hostility"? See what I'm getting at now?
2. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be de- termined in an adjudicatio n in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach.". This is the majority assuming one or two commissioners' comments constituted "hostility on the part of the State". I assume they also claim it was significant hostility (an eye-rolling at claims of religious exemption would presumably not invalidate a factual finding of discrimination?). I see no basis for that. More to the point, how would you know if the hostility was significant except by examining whether it was expressed in the ruling.3. "In that role, the Commission was no more permitted to base its decision on disdain ... than it would be entitled to base the decision on prejudice against gay people." You say it yourself - was the decision based on disdain? All I saw was an expression of disdain, which Kennedy took and ran with all the way to the end zone. Not any demonstration that that disdain was determinative of the decision. That was a huge leap by Kennedy. Unsupported by reference to the decision itself. I'm saying any disdain the commissioner's might or might not hold is irrelevant except insofar as it comes to expression in the decision, which should be evident in the text of the decision.
Look at my 'terrorist and judge expressing disdain of religious motivations for terror' analogy. I think it holds up.
(And of course I reject that pointing out factual historical points where religious beliefs were used to justify horrible actions actually constitutes disdainful expression, but that's a separate question.)So to me clearly a botched job of defending basic principles by muddying the waters with irrelevant imputations regarding the minds of the commissioners, rather than closely reading the terms of their finding (and subsequent Colorado actions in the case). Unfortunate, even dangerous, for the reasons cited in other posts. Expect "hostility" imputed to legislation and commissions to figure in many conservative judges future rulings. They'll conveniently ignore the robust defense of discrimination law in the ruling. So ultimatelyI'm questioning how narrow this "narrow" ruling will turn out to be.