OK Libs, Black Wedding Planner refuses service......

Well you failed. It was an issue with the location not the couple.

You whine a lot about attacks on religon. I think you're just paranoid.

 

She isn't the brightest penny in the fountain. But as far as the law goes there is no restrictions against discrimination against venues

 

That is a load of manure. Its not 'most states' that is the standard. It is Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and they were sure as hell were not 'fairly well integrated' I think segregation did a pretty good job of showing how poorly the market functions when a culture is determined to discriminate. We managed to keep women 'in their place' and outside of male dominated jobs for decades despite 'market forces'. Even post World war 2 we managed to get them shoved back in their box to veterans could get the well paying jobs and how long was it before they got equal pay for equal work without government telling businesses that offering different wage scales depending on genitalia, was not good public policy.

 

I never wrote that all states were fairly well integrated - most states were. You list 4 out of 50 that were a problem, that proves that accommodation laws and civil rights laws were not needed for the nation, and the segregation problem was a local issue.

 

We aren't talking a county or a suburb, we are talking about entire swaths of interconnected states. How many miles and miles and miles of segregation does it take to get your attention?

 

Sounds pretty stupid to me. Do the wedding, it's not even a real plantation nor did it exist during the slave era.

 

You listed 4 states out of 50. 8% of the nation. That proves the problem is not nationwide but a local one, and accommodation laws and civil rights laws were not needed nationwide.

 

I figured you'd get the point with the four. I was wrong. You are okay with four entire states discriminating against blacks in public accommodation. Not a problem worthy a national response. Lets go with every single confederate state as well as Texas. Is that enough to catch your attention or is it still a localized phenomena barely worth anyone's time. You make a lot of excuses for businesses to deny black folks equal access to products and services. I see no reason to write a law that exempts northern or western states from its reach, picking and choosing which states may and which states may not tolerate discrimination in public accommodation. Just outlaw the practice nation-wide, and people like you can move your sorry ass to a country which allows restaurants, hotels, gas stations, grocery stores to put "NO COLOREDS" signs up.

I don't think you will be missed here.

 

If her mission wasn't personal (from and to individual/s and their circumstances), why did her FB announcement declare 'black-owned'?

 

Perhaps, and this just might be crazy, perhaps she, as a Black person felt that her business putting on an affair at a "plantation" brings on images of slaves serving the "plantation" masters, and that might be bad for business as well as her image.

 

OK, lets play that game. If I am not okay with 4 states, am I okay with 3 or 2 or 1 state, or one city? Are you going to claim accommodation and civil rights laws are required if there is even 1 person who is a segregationist? 4 states is a local issue and not one that requires a host of new national laws.

And how broadly are you going to define "discrimination"? Look at the absurd lengths it has gone so far - all the way to the federal govt demanding transgender bathrooms in elementary schools.

You seem to want to intrude as far into peoples lives as possible in order to control their actions and thoughts to satisfy your conscience.

 

We've been playing this game since you decided that market forces could take care of this despite a century of segregation throughout the South, as though it was some minor hiccup in a few counties for a little while. My claim is that it's going to take a hell of a lot more that a few unfortunate souls here and there or a recalcitrant state or two,, to produce enough political momentum and pressure that a broad spectrum of Congressmen in both houses from multiple regions, will risk offending the big business lobby by amending the civil rights act to include a new protected class. Minor little local matters do not produce a major amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I stopped at four, not because the segregated South was limited to four states, but because I wrongly assumed you were smart enough to get the point without listing every state that rose a confederate flag.

you seem to want to turn your back on every right, except a private property right and to retract the scope of the federal govt to fit the needs of only the white male property owners of the late 18th century who have incorporated themselves into behemoth power brokers and economic bullies and have stayed largely in control of this country's actions for a century.

 

I wonder...in what way would things change if you replaced black with Christian and plantation with rainbow in the story in OP?

 

I don't understand what is meant by "plantation wedding". I've never in all my life heard that. Were they trying to describe a "southern belle" type wedding? I feel as if there is not enough information here to actually formulate an opinion in any manner that would be meaningful.

 

Nothing. But the panties.

 

The Black woman's position is that she does not want to support something associated with oppression - invoked by the term plantation.

The "Pizza" guy's position was that he wanted to oppress others on the basis of their sexual orientation.

This is the difference.

 

The black woman wanted to deny service to a person because that person was having an event at a location with a name the black women did not like.

The "Pizza" guy wanted to deny service to a person because he did not like the event.

No difference.

And by refusing service you are not oppressing anyone.

 

I explained to you the difference. You blubbering out some nonsense without addressing the or refuting the difference explained in my post - does not refute my claim.

Of course refusing service is a form of oppression. For example: if you were in medical distress and a hospital refused to look at you because you were gay, or black, or whatever other dumb reason ... this is oppression and discrimination.

Get an argument .. = not just a claim but support for that claim.

 

LOL, you just cant take it when your argument is refuted. Open your eyes, you are trying to justify oppression from one person and punish oppression from another for the same action. Stop being a hypocrite.

 

You did not even address my argument ? never mind refute it.

You tried to claim that denial of service was not oppression. I gave you the hospital example and you completely ignored it. How is ignoring an argument a refutation to anything.

 

Its a very clear situation.

Both people denied service because of their personal dislike of the customers requirement. You cannot argue that one denial is oppression, the other is not.

And this is not about life critical care. Its a wedding.

All you are doing is showing the hypocrisy this OP was designed to highlight.

 

If I say the sky is blue, and you say the sky is green ... repeating "the sky is green, the sky is green" over and over is not a refutation ? or is it in your mind?!

I told you how the situations were different. In the case of the Black woman you have her acting on the base of what she considers a term that represents oppression of blacks (the word plantation has slave connotations and the woman probably has ancestors who were slaves). I do not even know if I agree with this woman. The word "plantation" does not necessarily mean that. (which would represent the start of an argument - but you have not said this nor made an argument of any kind against the woman's claim).

What the Pizza guy is arguing is completely different. Pizza guy is wanting to discriminate against gays on the basis of his religious belief.

Since these arguments are different - each has to be examined on its own merit or lack thereof.

 

I would agree with you that denial of service in both cases is oppression. The question is whether or not that oppression is justified.

As said in the previous post - each case has to be examined on it's own merits.

 

You mean its acceptable to oppress someone if the oppressor feels it is justified. From your own post, the "black women did not like" the name of the location of an event so in your mind she is justified in oppressing people.

Do you understand how utterly foolish your argument is?

 

What is utterly foolish is after I say " I do not even know if I agree with this woman" - you saying "So in your mind she is justified"

I might as well be talking to a wall. You do not even understand the argument, never mind having the ability to make one of your own.