The very phrase “protect people from discrimination” is ridiculous. “Discrimination” is a complete non action. It is somebody standing on their property and deciding to do nothing. They are taking no action with anybody. Phrasing “discrimination” as if it is an active action, an act of aggression, that needs “protecting” from is almost as Orwellian as the usage of the word “rights” in the term “civil rights”. Mixing up the concept of positive/negative rights of “nobody has the right to do X to me” with “nobody has the right to not do X with me”, as if the two are the complete exact same, is a complete abuse of language and is manipulative political propaganda. You have the right to the things that are yours, you do not have the right to things that are others.
>60+ years of wignats screeching about the CRAgem
Explain COINTELPRO to the rest of the class Timmy
>>18248440>blah blah blah racism is....GOOD actually!>but don't you EVER EVER EVER say something antiwhite >:(
>>18248445Everything we've been going through until now is the backlash against the CRA. Nothing else mindbroke a nation so much.
Do you think if mlk saw the present he would change his mind
>>18248440>be you, thinking property rights are a magical shieldImagine thinking a bakery, open to public, is just private property doing nothing. Its existence is already a state-enforced monopoly on violence keeping others out. You accept that state force protects the shop from robbery, but cry Orwellian when same force stops shop from robbing a class of people of access?
>>18248452He'd radicalize
>>18248452He would be anti lgbtq+ but no he won't. He would still be complaining. We literally people from his generation still alive today. They're socially conservative but still anti racism or at least anti black racism.
>>18248452He wanted race to not be part of the equation, he would have hated identity politics and critical race theory. I think he wouldn't mind the current administration as much as the modern lefty.
>>18248456*We literally have How the fuck can you miss that you stupid phone.
>>18248454I am sure can argue plenty about how property rights are not valid. Discrimination laws do not just cover things that have to do with physical property though, they cover contractual labor as well. The cake scenario didnt have to do with property, nor did it really even have to do with anybody’s identity. The couple could have bought any pre made cake from that exact same bakery and put what they wanted on it. It was about forcing people to express a message on a cake that they did not agree with. (first amendment violation).
