tenet, not tenant

I know the spiel, but that’s only a theoretical believe. In practice the laws themselves design classes. Take this health care law, A fair and equal exchange would have everyone including the president paying into a single-payer system.Instead, we have to line up based on our income. A doctor will know your income based on what plan you have, and only inferior doctors are going to line-up and serve those at the bottom of the tier. Health care for all my ass. Those at the bottom of the tier are going to be treated just like those receiving medical assistance. They will be forced to wait long period for services, will often see a nurse practicer instead of a qualified doctor, rushed through surgeries, and exploited by every inferior doctor in the system. It’s not even a choice anymore. A low-income person not receiving assistance could save up and pay out of pocket to see any doctor they wanted. They were free to be treated equally. Not anymore. It’s now the law you pay for a plan that sticks you in a class. One of the first question on a higher tier application is: Are you eligible for the exchange? In other words: Are you low income or middle class? They are not allowed to sign you up if you are eligible for a cheaper plan.

What if government organizations display the same behavior? Do we not have the same obligation to redress the injustice? Are we to meekly acquiesce to the force of government used inimically on its citizens or do we have cause to remonstrate in the most forceful terms our displeasure at such usurpation?

Reality is so harsh isn't it? =) Libs just don't get it, despite all the indoctrination, uh, I mean 'edukashun'. got kommon kore?

me too

By law, not by amendment. Which has the higher precedence?

Your comment here places you in the precincts of the fascists. Force is your only answer to resistance or contravention of your preferences. I would use the salutation used by Germans in WW 2 but, by Godwin's Law, it would put a damper on the thread. Not that I wouldn't like to take you aside and forcefully introduce you to some different learning curves. Because when you leave the sheltered halls of academia, you will be in for some very rude awakenings.

I agree.

If you turn away business for whatever reason, then you have lost that income by your own free will...and there is no-one that you will have to answer to but yourself.

I like those odds....

it hurts you economically. legislating an answer only shifts the problem to other areas. the best answer was to let people use their ability to freely associate.

But how is not allowing someone into my store hurting them? I'm not threatening to do anything to them, so what is the government protecting them from?

the answer is much larger than Ocare

cg, the "war on..." by our government is an age old political tactic. palms are crossed way above your head and mine, and certainly above those who live on the edge ecoomically

Is this simplistic: If the business refuses service, the business doesn't have to provide the service and the customer keeps her money. On the surface, that sounds like no harm was done. Everyone gets to stay where they started. In practice, it's probably more complicated.

IMHO you should focus on how you can be the best choice for your customer. Once you're adding value there, you'll need all kinds of services, and that's what helps employees and venders. You can't start with trying to help your employees or venders. That will happen when you have so many eager customers that you're having to pay people way above the going rate if they can keep things running way above the standard level of service customers expect. That's a hard place to get to.

Take all this with a grain of salt b/c I'm still learning.

I agree with your points about the drug war, BUT khalling has a powerful point. The 1920s was when the concept of drug prohibition came into existence, and it turned into an all out war on America in 1970. We should see the same effects appear in 1920 and then amplified in 1970 if prohibition is the cause?

A few years before 1970, we declared war on poverty. I'd love to read expert opinions on working which "war" caused the family breakdown. Maybe both of them did. Maybe the Second Great Migration caused it. Does anyone know of any books on this?

I have a retail business and I don't discriminate against anyone. I wait on my customers in the order they enter the store. I don't look at gender, color, sexual preference or anything else for that matter. I don't think any establishment that openly discriminates would last long. That is why I don't understand the uproar when someone does, in the minds of some, discriminate. Why would someone want to force someone to sell them a product or service. This is America. Simply support another business and encourage others to do the same. The market will decide who is right and who is wrong.

Is requiring businesses to serve customers it doesn't want a good tool to bring about equal protection or a measure of last resort?

Will there ever come a day when racism and religious issues are so far in the past that we don't need a law forcing businesses not to discriminate? Or will gov't always have to monitor that businesses aren't discriminating?

I'm against gov't forcing businesses to serve customers they don't want. The old saying "if we don't provide good service to our customers, someone else will" is true. Also, I imagine if the economy isn't that great many businesses don't have luxury of pushing their racist agenda. They need the business.

LOL!

Now you are 'demoting' my answers to you? You did see my 'kidding' emoticon, right....

Isn't this discrimination on your part? :-0

Your example is a straw man...and pretty lame.

Reverse discrimination applies to where a minority gets advanced (or simply hired) over more qualified applicants, solely for the satisfaction of some contrived quota, or worse.

The recorded instances of this are overwhelming, and has been taken all the way to the SCOTUS.

You are wrong.

I submit that the MAJORITY of Americans resent being told that it takes a federal law to keep us from being racists.

You might want to incorporate that in your lectures to us.