Post by: bflynn on March 07, 2018, 07:00:16 AM
Quote
A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods of age-discrimination for refusing to sell him a rifle.
Tyler Watson filed Oregon county court lawsuits against the retailers on Monday, six days after they announced they would not sell guns to buyers under 21.The companies added the higher age restriction after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.
This isn't exactly fresh news...it's been out for a day or two. But I just caught onto the fact that this was in Oregon.
Someone remind me - if a business has a personal feeling about selling a product because they don't agree with a protected characteristic of the customer, can they or can't they choose to sell their product?
"Hello, I am a (race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age) person and I would like to buy your product (rifle or wedding cake)."
Pick and choose your options, but be consistent.
Are these two statements legally different in any way?
I refuse to sell you a rifle because of your age.
I refuse to sell you a wedding cake because of your sexual orientation.
Apparently in Oregon, it might be.
Please don't go down the route of telling me that it's about the baker's religion. I know that. I'm point out Oregon's dilemma before they recognize it themselves.
Post by: Ron22 on March 07, 2018, 07:09:24 AM
NRA is behind it.
He can buy it somewhere else.
They have the right not to serve people.
Of course all the rational people keep asking about the wedding cake.
Post by: invflatspin on March 07, 2018, 08:12:36 AM
BLAM!!
Post by: acrogimp on March 07, 2018, 11:03:48 AM
So no, Dick's cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of age when there are existing Federal, State and Locals law covering age requirements (could Toyota refuse to sell a sports car to a 17 yr old on the basis of his/her age?).
In contrast, someone who is personally making artistic efforts, say a photographer or cake maker, CAN discriminate on the basis of their closely held personal beliefs, to REQUIRE them to create artistic things that go against their closely held personal beliefs is tantamount to State enforced slavery and that went out of fashion in these parts some 160 years ago.
TL/DR - apples and oranges. Next?
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on March 07, 2018, 01:36:29 PM
There is a significant and not even remotely subtle difference between a business selling regulated mass-produced manufactured goods and one that sells personal artistic efforts.
So no, Dick's cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of age when there are existing Federal, State and Locals law covering age requirements (could Toyota refuse to sell a sports car to a 17 yr old on the basis of his/her age?).
In contrast, someone who is personally making artistic efforts, say a photographer or cake maker, CAN discriminate on the basis of their closely held personal beliefs, to REQUIRE them to create artistic things that go against their closely held personal beliefs is tantamount to State enforced slavery and that went out of fashion in these parts some 160 years ago.
TL/DR - apples and oranges. Next?
'Gimp
I would actually say that these are the same and I'm in favor of the business.
Post by: acrogimp on March 07, 2018, 02:02:54 PM
I would actually say that these are the same and I'm in favor of the business.You would say that a large corporation selling prefabricated mass-produced goods is the same as an individual creating artistic goods essentially on request?
Wow, just, wow. And by your admission a Toyota dealership should be able to openly state age as the basis of refusal to sell a car.... wow.
Not even the IRS considers them the same, not even the poorly named Board of Equalization in the People's Republik of Kalifornia considers them the same - legally they are not the same, morally they are not the same, financially they are not the same.
Now, I do not see the benefit of any business stating any reason for refusing to do business with anyone, given what happened in OR and CO - it is the same, in a twisted way, as the misguided virtue signalling of an outfit like Dick's - don't give a reason, just refuse - but in our litigious instant-victimization society whether or not you give an explicit reason the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems far too quaint - still, nothing to be gained by giving an explanation IMO.
Were I the cake baker I would have declined and if pressed would have said 'scheduling', I do not need to impress my morality on others in a punitive way (I leave that up to closeted and 'out' liberals), especially when right or wrong it may open me up for a suit.
Understand I believe CO and OR and similar laws are totally wrongheaded in this (and unconstitutional, but I repeat myself) and I am confident these suits which are finally making their way to SCOTUS will be overturned, likely on First Amendment grounds, although effectively too late for the poor businesses in question.
The smallest minority in the US deserving of protection, and the only one expressly identified, is the individual - the State cannot force you to create anything, period, end of line.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on March 07, 2018, 02:47:27 PM
The smallest minority in the US deserving of protection, and the only one expressly identified, is the individual - the State cannot force you to create anything, period, end of line.
They are businesses. Let they have the customers they want to have. If they are idiots, then it will cost them.
Why is a public company less worthy of protection than an individual? If the business cannot refuse something then the individuals who make up the business cannot refuse. Be consistent.
Post by: acrogimp on March 07, 2018, 03:07:02 PM
They are businesses. Let they have the customers they want to have. If they are idiots, then it will cost them.I am trying not to be pedantic here so let me try to simplify because I am being completely consistent here, the issue appears to be languaging.
Why is a public company less worthy of protection than an individual? If the business cannot refuse something then the individuals who make up the business cannot refuse. Be consistent.
Can a baker refuse to sell 'a' cake to someone because they are gay (or are black, or have one leg, etc.)? No.
Can a baker refuse to create a commissioned wedding cake on the basis of closely held personal beliefs? Yes. And religion is actually key although I suspect the argument would hold for philosophical beliefs as well with respect to free expression, up to and including 'hate speech').
Can a photographer refuse to sell an existing photo to someone because they are gay? No.
Can a photographer refuse to shoot a commissioned event on the basis of closely held personal beliefs? Yes.
Can a writer refuse to sell someone an existing poem because they are gay? No.
Can a writer refuse to create a poem on request on the basis of closely held personal beliefs? Yes.
Why the difference? 1st Amendment.
The State cannot limit (or by extension compel) expression by an individual. Art (photography, painting, writing, cake, etc.) is a previously adjudicated and protected form of expression and is protected by the 1st Amendment - even a Judge here in Commiefornia got this right recently.
So putting the thoughts together, you cannot compel the creation of art/expression when it goes against personal religious beliefs.
It is somewhat similar to the concept of 'general holding out' or 'common carriage' with respect to commercial flight operations - some kinds of operations where compensation results are legal , where others are not - same here.
When the product is intended for 'general use and consumption' the 14th Amendment and 'equal protection' applies to protect individuals in a general sense.
The difference is the nature of the product - commissioned art or speech is not the same as a mass-produced item whether it is a pencil, a sports car or a scary looking black rifle. Here the 1st Amendment has priority, as does the protection of the individual in the individual sense.
Again, you can't refuse to sell a generic cake, but you absolutely can refuse to create a wedding cake.
Under no circumstances though could a Toyota dealership, or a Sporting Goods store, or a baker refuse to sell a general use product to someone legally entitled to buy it unless legally required not to (e.g., bar stop serving obviously drunk patron).
'Gimp
Edited to depersonalize a little, was getting frustrated needlessly
Post by: invflatspin on March 07, 2018, 03:09:33 PM
"I'm sorry, but I will not take the appendix out of this man because he is unclean".
hmmmm
Post by: acrogimp on March 07, 2018, 03:42:36 PM
A muslim surgeon is an individual, and a business. Suppose he's the only one around, and a jew needs an emer appendectomy?I suspect there is a difference between emergency medicine and elective medicine, and also between private and public practice. Private practice doctors refuse non-emergency patents all the time and no reason is required - doctors can also refuse treatment that they believe themselves or their surroundings are not qualified to provide.
"I'm sorry, but I will not take the appendix out of this man because he is unclean".
hmmmm
Christian Scientists show the patient end, there are practically no limits to the refusal of treatment, even for children, on the basis of religious grounds although there have been successful wrongful death prosecutions of parents (both more at State than Federal level).
Is there a hippocake-ic oath, above all bake no harm? ;^)
While there is far too much gooobermint in general I don't think there is a State Bakery Board and Baker's License equivalent to a State Medical Board and Medical License - again, the key is the general consumption vs commissioned/requested creation - still apples and oranges I think.
'Gimp
Post by: invflatspin on March 07, 2018, 04:20:01 PM
Post by: bflynn on March 07, 2018, 06:04:23 PM
It was just a rhetorical device to point out that going down this path of individual expressionism in business being a sticky wicket. I'm a professional, and I work with customers around the globe every week. If I start picking and choosing whom I'm going to do business with - I'll have major problems soon.
Most of all because no business can really afford to pick and choose customers. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. But it is your choice.
Can a company decide not to sell a product to someone based on a deeply held belief (of the management) that a younger person should not have it?
Could the owner of a shop selling Africa merchandise refuse to sell to a white person on the deeply held belief that it is "black" merchandise shop?
Post by: asechrest on March 07, 2018, 07:33:21 PM
Guess someone should sue this guy, too:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/7/florida-gun-shop-owner-refused-sell-cruz-ar-15/
Quote
“And I asked him, it’s the first question I ask everybody, ‘How old are you?’” the owner, Razi, told Local10 News, the ABC News affiliate. “And I believe he said, ‘Oh, I’m over 18.’ I said, ‘Are you under 21?’ He said, ‘Yes,’ and I said, ‘I don’t sell any firearms to under the age of 21.’”
Post by: invflatspin on March 07, 2018, 07:44:39 PM
Post by: nddons on March 07, 2018, 07:46:40 PM
Guess someone should sue this guy, too:Holy crap. That guy dodged a bullet so to speak.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/7/florida-gun-shop-owner-refused-sell-cruz-ar-15/
The shooter gave him a bad review online. Hahaha. Millennials and their Yelp.
Post by: Jim Logajan on March 07, 2018, 08:52:40 PM
Guess someone should sue this guy, too:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/7/florida-gun-shop-owner-refused-sell-cruz-ar-15/
The lawsuit in Oregon is relying on an Oregon statute that prohibits age discrimination by businesses offering public accommodations - but it only applies to those of age 18 and above. So stores in Oregon presumably are allowed to discriminate against minors. The lawsuit is being brought by someone who is over 18.
Florida may not have any equivalent law.
Here's an article by a lawyer that provides a good analysis:
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/age-discrimination-suit-against-dicks-sp (https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/age-discrimination-suit-against-dicks-sp)
Post by: Little Joe on March 08, 2018, 04:33:55 AM
Well, the fact is, my muslim vs jew, and your black merch vs white buyer are easy ones. Race and religion are protected classes, so in both of those cases, refusing to perform is against the law. However, age discrimination in business is not so clear cut. It's a gray area with a lot of things, like cigs and booze. There is compelling reason to restrict these products from young people. I guess in this case of firearms, maybe an age limitation might be a good idea.Agree completely. The fact is the human brain is not fully developed at 18. I have read studies that say the brain isn't fully developed until anywhere from mid 20's to mid 40's. So a minimum age for certain things (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, guns, voting) is not inappropriate and is not discriminatory.
Post by: bflynn on March 08, 2018, 06:38:47 AM
Well, the fact is, my muslim vs jew, and your black merch vs white buyer are easy ones. Race and religion are protected classes, so in both of those cases, refusing to perform is against the law. However, age discrimination in business is not so clear cut. It's a gray area with a lot of things, like cigs and booze. There is compelling reason to restrict these products from young people. I guess in this case of firearms, maybe an age limitation might be a good idea.
Actually, they're not easy ones, they are hard because of the result. If you are a proponent of personal freedom, then that must include the freedom to choose your customers. It's a stupid way to do business and not at all socially acceptable, but if you're going to be consistent and not hypocritical then you have to agree it should be the business owner's choice.
What is the difference between
I refuse to sell you a wedding cake because my beliefs say I cannot assist your gay wedding
I refuse to sell you an Africa t-shirt because my intention for this product is for black people to express pride
I refuse to sell you an American flag because I know you intend to burn it and my patriotic beliefs prohibit me from assisting you
These are all the same - I refuse to sell you (x) because my belief says (y). It shouldn't matter whether it is an individual or public corporation run by individuals.
Be consistent or you'll get raked over the coals when you try to argue this with others.
Does this lead to places that we find very weird? Yes, it does, because we have butchered the bill of rights and made that butchery part of the culture.
Post by: Little Joe on March 08, 2018, 07:11:12 AM
Post by: acrogimp on March 08, 2018, 07:38:17 AM
Actually, they're not easy ones, they are hard because of the result. If you are a proponent of personal freedom, then that must include the freedom to choose your customers. It's a stupid way to do business and not at all socially acceptable, but if you're going to be consistent and not hypocritical then you have to agree it should be the business owner's choice.Well, I tried to be nice thinking it was a comms issue but I was wrong, you are either deliberately ignoring the glaring difference between general use and commissioned art, or you don't understand it.
What is the difference between
I refuse to sell you a wedding cake because my beliefs say I cannot assist your gay wedding
I refuse to sell you an Africa t-shirt because my intention for this product is for black people to express pride
I refuse to sell you an American flag because I know you intend to burn it and my patriotic beliefs prohibit me from assisting you
These are all the same - I refuse to sell you (x) because my belief says (y). It shouldn't matter whether it is an individual or public corporation run by individuals.
Be consistent or you'll get raked over the coals when you try to argue this with others.
Does this lead to places that we find very weird? Yes, it does, because we have butchered the bill of rights and made that butchery part of the culture.
Dick's will loose in OR, slam dunk guaranteed, as they are discriminating based on age, illegal.
The gay wedding cake decision will be overturned at SCOTUS, guaranteed, because art is protected under free speech.
The example of afrocentric goods is lame, the general holding out in a general retail environment opens up protections for the customer, the commissioned creation of specific art drives protection for the artist. Someone refusing to sell someone something created for general use on the basis of race will always be illegal - an artist could refuse to create something on specific request.
This is really (at least should be) not very hard to understand and is completely consistent (and has been largely already adjudicated consistently as I explain with a few noted exceptions like OR and CO which are at SCOTUS and will be overturned).
'Gimp
Post by: Number7 on March 08, 2018, 08:24:33 AM
Their reasoning is always based on either emotion, or agenda.
There is no room for fairness, integrity, or the law.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 08, 2018, 08:52:09 AM
My thought is that the baker didn't exclude a particular customer. He merely refused to make a certain product; a product that he wouldn't have made for anybody.Exactly, and that is the gist of the problem re: forcing people to create art for gay weddings. I know the florist sued in Richland, Washington for declining to do so. She offered three options. I will sell you flowers, I will ask someone else on my staff to do your wedding, I will give you recommendations of florists who will do what you wish. Not good enough. She was sued by the gay couple and by our freakishly leftist Attorney General.
Post by: Ron22 on March 08, 2018, 09:05:49 AM
Dick's will loose in OR, slam dunk guaranteed, as they are discriminating based on age, illegal.Dicks should lose. Based on the court rulings I have seen I would not call it a slam dunk
Quote
The gay wedding cake decision will be overturned at SCOTUS, guaranteed, because art is protected under free speech.You really have that much faith in the SCOTUS
Post by: You Only Live Twice on March 08, 2018, 09:10:03 AM
Agree completely. The fact is the human brain is not fully developed at 18. I have read studies that say the brain isn't fully developed until anywhere from mid 20's to mid 40's. So a minimum age for certain things (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, guns, voting) is not inappropriate and is not discriminatory.
For liberals, brains are never fully developed.
Post by: invflatspin on March 08, 2018, 10:21:38 AM
Post by: acrogimp on March 08, 2018, 10:38:41 AM
I'm not sure the dick's case would be a slam dunk loss either. Stretching the 'keep and bear' argument to 'must sell to anyone with pulse' may not turn out as we expect. Again, the wording in the amendment was aimed directly at the govt, as a hard limit on it's power to restrict gun access. If that is expanded to all citizens, of all businesses, in all cases, we're back to the proverbial 8YO with $1000 wanting a Utica 12Ga pump and some shells. Surely there must be an infringement based on common sense.Nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, everything to do with age discrimination/equal protection clause - when selling produced goods to the general public you cannot discriminate against individuals on any of the protected class definitions and that includes age. Legal age to purchase is set by Federal, State then Local law, retailer has no ability further restrict on basis of age - if a person comes in, is of legal age for that locale, has the coin, and passes the NICS check you can't refuse.
'Gimp
Post by: Little Joe on March 08, 2018, 11:25:51 AM
Nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, everything to do with age discrimination/equal protection clause - when selling produced goods to the general public you cannot discriminate against individuals on any of the protected class definitions and that includes age. Legal age to purchase is set by Federal, State then Local law, retailer has no ability further restrict on basis of age - if a person comes in, is of legal age for that locale, has the coin, and passes the NICS check you can't refuse.If I am correct, "age discrimination" laws only apply to people over 40.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on March 08, 2018, 11:50:06 AM
Well, I tried to be nice thinking it was a comms issue but I was wrong, you are either deliberately ignoring the glaring difference between general use and commissioned art, or you don't understand it.
Dick's will loose in OR, slam dunk guaranteed, as they are discriminating based on age, illegal.
The gay wedding cake decision will be overturned at SCOTUS, guaranteed, because art is protected under free speech.
The example of afrocentric goods is lame, the general holding out in a general retail environment opens up protections for the customer, the commissioned creation of specific art drives protection for the artist. Someone refusing to sell someone something created for general use on the basis of race will always be illegal - an artist could refuse to create something on specific request.
This is really (at least should be) not very hard to understand and is completely consistent (and has been largely already adjudicated consistently as I explain with a few noted exceptions like OR and CO which are at SCOTUS and will be overturned).
'Gimp
My examples were not given to counter the gun buying case, but to continue more examples along a different thread.
While I certainly hope the Masterpiece case come out in favor of Mr Phillips, I don't think his case is a slam dunk because I don't think his lawyers made a good argument. As they argued, his case had to do with compelled speech, not protected art. As far as I know, the SC has never made a ruling about compelled speech in the realm of professional art. The court rulings that we do have come from state supreme courts, New Mexico and Washington, and both rule that a professional artist is a professional and therefore compelled by public accommodation laws. To my knowledge we have never had such a case argued as along the conscientious objector laws, which is where I believe the true issue lies.
To clarify, I ignore the difference because I'm not convinced that there is a difference. Whatever general use category example you can give, there can be a deeply held conviction to justify an exception. You called my example lame, but you didn't explain why. I described the product as not for general use, but for special use. I think you reject the special use category and therefore you don't get to making the comparison.
In the end, it's all part of a bigger question - how can you allow people to live their lives with conviction but simultaneously force them into compliance with someone else's convictions? There's also a question as to consistency in your positions since it seems that sometimes you say someone's deeply held conviction is worthy of protection and sometimes it is not.
My answer is that people should always be free to sell what they want to who they want, because I believe in freedom. I think most Americans believe in freedom. If your argument is that someone who sells must sell to everyone then you have yet to differentiate between my afrocentric artist selling protest t-shirts and Mr Phillips.
Post by: bflynn on March 08, 2018, 11:53:30 AM
Nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, everything to do with age discrimination/equal protection clause - when selling produced goods to the general public you cannot discriminate against individuals on any of the protected class definitions and that includes age. ...
And again emphasizing the question - how do you decide that Mr Phillips' may not sell, but Dicks must. Of course, my answer is they both can choose not to, but it seems many here don't even understand that answer.
I understand the laws in play - just not how you propose that we resolve who may and may not ignore them.
Post by: invflatspin on March 08, 2018, 12:15:02 PM
Nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, everything to do with age discrimination/equal protection clause - when selling produced goods to the general public you cannot discriminate against individuals on any of the protected class definitions and that includes age. Legal age to purchase is set by Federal, State then Local law, retailer has no ability further restrict on basis of age - if a person comes in, is of legal age for that locale, has the coin, and passes the NICS check you can't refuse.
'Gimp
Sorry to disagree with your premise, but in the case of Dick's the discrimination is one of the protected class - to whit, an "arms" which has specific and well defined protection. The arms business gets special consideration, over and above things like donuts, and tools, and fishing rods. Right now there is no defined age to purchase arms, and the 2nd A is very clear in its wording.
Post by: bflynn on March 08, 2018, 12:17:58 PM
Sorry to disagree with your premise, but in the case of Dick's the discrimination is one of the protected class - to whit, an "arms" which has specific and well defined protection. The arms business gets special consideration, over and above things like donuts, and tools, and fishing rods. Right now there is no defined age to purchase arms, and the 2nd A is very clear in its wording.
The defined age to purchase a gun is 18 in Oregon. According to current law, Dicks is giving public accommodation and therefore must afford equal protection of that age.
Post by: Little Joe on March 08, 2018, 12:28:33 PM
The defined age to purchase a gun is 18 in Oregon. According to current law, Dicks is giving public accommodation and therefore must afford equal protection of that age.Can you be specific about "current law". From what I read, as I said before, age discrimination laws only apply to people over 40. Perhaps that is only with regards to employment though.
I don't know if this is a valid analogy, but if the minimum speed limit is 40, that doesn't mean you have to drive 40. If the minimum age purchase a gun is 18, why does that mean a retailer has to sell to the minimum age customer?
Post by: invflatspin on March 08, 2018, 12:36:19 PM
The defined age to purchase a gun is 18 in Oregon. According to current law, Dicks is giving public accommodation and therefore must afford equal protection of that age.
Would be interesting to see that challenge in SCOTUS. I'm not disagreeing with the limitation, just that anything that flies in the face of 2nd A usually has a rough go of it when challenged.
Post by: bflynn on March 08, 2018, 12:37:30 PM
Can you be specific about "current law". From what I read, as I said before, age discrimination laws only apply to people over 40. Perhaps that is only with regards to employment though.
I don't know if this is a valid analogy, but if the minimum speed limit is 40, that doesn't mean you have to drive 40. If the minimum age purchase a gun is 18, why does that mean a retailer has to sell to the minimum age customer?
The federal Age Discrimination in Employment act does not apply to anyone under 40. Oregon age discrimination law has no age range.
Post by: nddons on March 08, 2018, 12:42:10 PM
Exactly, and that is the gist of the problem re: forcing people to create art for gay weddings. I know the florist sued in Richland, Washington for declining to do so. She offered three options. I will sell you flowers, I will ask someone else on my staff to do your wedding, I will give you recommendations of florists who will do what you wish. Not good enough. She was sued by the gay couple and by our freakishly leftist Attorney General.And the left calls the right “Nazis.”
Post by: Number7 on March 08, 2018, 08:31:03 PM
Exactly, and that is the gist of the problem re: forcing people to create art for gay weddings. I know the florist sued in Richland, Washington for declining to do so. She offered three options. I will sell you flowers, I will ask someone else on my staff to do your wedding, I will give you recommendations of florists who will do what you wish. Not good enough. She was sued by the gay couple and by our freakishly leftist Attorney General.
The sad thing about the two attention whore dykes is that they intentionally drove past something like 22 bakeries to get to one that would not give them everything they demanded, just so they could go into their queer nazi routine and sue. They intended to 'shop' until they got the answer they wanted and then pretended to be shaken, sad, pathetic and as stupid as they are ugly.
I recall reading about Rosa Parks. It was all a set up. Her handlers picked the details of the situation - the situation just so she could make her stand and get attention. She didn't just happen to be on that one bus, on that day, on that route. She CHOSE that bus and had the party and the press in attendance to make sure she got to be famous.
The left is the most intellectually dishonest group of people on earth. The level of hypocrisy they embrace adn suck on would choke a normal human to death.
Post by: Little Joe on March 09, 2018, 05:57:43 AM
I hadn't heard that before. Any citations?
I recall reading about Rosa Parks. It was all a set up. Her handlers picked the details of the situation - the situation just so she could make her stand and get attention. She didn't just happen to be on that one bus, on that day, on that route. She CHOSE that bus and had the party and the press in attendance to make sure she got to be famous.
But even if that is true, the injustice towards blacks at that time was real and inexcusable.
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 08:12:26 AM
I hadn't heard that before. Any citations?
But even if that is true, the injustice towards blacks at that time was real and inexcusable.
If I recall Correctly, Thurgood Marshall was the NAAXP's lawyer and he thought Roasa pArks was the best candidate to use to set up a court date to challenge the law.
Rosa Parks became active in the civil rights in the early 1940s. She joined the National Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) and within a couple of years had become secretary of the Montgomery branch (chapter). In this role she met figures such as Philip Randolph, Edgar Nixon and Ella Baker. These activists worked within a range of different organizations. This included the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). Established in 1942, members were mainly pacifists who had been deeply influenced by Henry David Thoreau and the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the non-violent civil disobedience campaign that he used successfully against British rule in India. The students became convinced that the same methods could be employed by blacks to obtain civil rights in America.
In early 1947, CORE announced plans to send eight white and eight black men into the Deep South to test the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation in interstate travel unconstitutional. organized by George Houser and Bayard Rustin, the Journey of Reconciliation was to be a two week pilgrimage through Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky.
The Journey of Reconciliation began on 9th April, 1947. The team included George Houser, Bayard Rustin, James Peck, Igal Roodenko, Nathan Wright, Conrad Lynn, Wallace Nelson, Andrew Johnson, Eugene Stanley, Dennis Banks, William Worthy, Louis Adams, Joseph Felmet, Worth Randle and Homer Jack.
Members of the Journey of Reconciliation team were arrested several times. In North Carolina, two of the African Americans, Bayard Rustin and Andrew Johnson, were found guilty of violating the state's Jim Crow bus statute and were sentenced to thirty days on a chain gang. However, Judge Henry Whitfield made it clear he found that behaviour of the white men even more objectionable. He told Igal Roodenko and Joseph Felmet: "It's about time you Jews from New York learned that you can't come down her bringing your niggers with you to upset the customs of the South. Just to teach you a lesson, I gave your black boys thirty days, and I give you ninety."
Rosa Parks and other civil rights activists considered using these tactics in Montgomery. However, under pressure from the NAACP, this never took place. Thurgood Marshall, head of the NAACP's legal department had warned that a "disobedience movement on the part of Negroes and their white allies, if employed in the South, would result in wholesale slaughter with no good achieved."
In early 1955, Claudette Colvin, a 15 year old black girl was dragged off a bus in Montgomery and arrested for not giving up her seat to a white person. The NAACP now agreed to take up the Colvin incident as a test case. It believed that this would result in a similar outcome to the 1954 Supreme Court Decision on segregation in education. However, the NAACP decided to drop the idea when they discovered that Colvin was pregnant. They knew that the authorities in Montgomery would use this against them in the propaganda war that would inevitably take place during this legal battle.
Post by: Anthony on March 09, 2018, 10:07:43 AM
Post by: Jim Logajan on March 09, 2018, 11:47:05 AM
I recall reading about Rosa Parks. It was all a set up. Her handlers picked the details of the situation - the situation just so she could make her stand and get attention. She didn't just happen to be on that one bus, on that day, on that route. She CHOSE that bus and had the party and the press in attendance to make sure she got to be famous.
Why don’t you actually try doing some trivially easy research on a subject before writing down your misremembered “facts?” There was no press in attendance. She actually sat in the section for colored people, not white people. The white section of the bus filled up and the driver was moving the colored section back to make room for more boarding whites - something no one likely could have anticipated. This is recounted in the Wikipedia entry on Rosa Parks and elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Her_refusal_to_move (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Her_refusal_to_move)
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 11:49:34 AM
Why don’t you actually try doing some trivially easy research on a subject before writing down your misremembered “facts?” There was no press in attendance. She actually sat in the section for colored people, not white people. The white section of the bus filled up and the driver was moving the colored section back to make room for more boarding whites - something no one likely could have anticipated. This is recounted in the Wikipedia entry on Rosa Parks and elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Her_refusal_to_move (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Her_refusal_to_move)
You fucking assholes quoting wiki and snopes are such a pathetic band of morons.
Post by: Jim Logajan on March 09, 2018, 12:09:21 PM
You fucking assholes quoting wiki and snopes are such a pathetic band of morons.
Post YOUR sources (other than your recollections.) You made the initial claim.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks (https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks)
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 01:19:47 PM
Post YOUR sources (other than your recollections.) You made the initial claim.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks (https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks)
Take your fucking, lazy, pathetic, liberal demand and shove it up your pamapered, pathetic ass.
I SAID I read it years ago, you lazy, pathetic, whiner.
YOU being a pathetic asshole, doesn't obligate me to explain something I read years ago.
That your pathetic, lazy ass needs to find solace in snopes and wiki, proves everything needed to dismiss you as someone too intellectually lazy to bother trying to have a conversation with.
If two syllable words are to hard for your weak constitution, go ask a human instead of those fucking jerks at snopes and wiki.
Post by: asechrest on March 09, 2018, 02:23:39 PM
Take your fucking, lazy, pathetic, liberal demand and shove it up your pamapered, pathetic ass.
I SAID I read it years ago, you lazy, pathetic, whiner.
YOU being a pathetic asshole, doesn't obligate me to explain something I read years ago.
That your pathetic, lazy ass needs to find solace in snopes and wiki, proves everything needed to dismiss you as someone too intellectually lazy to bother trying to have a conversation with.
If two syllable words are to hard for your weak constitution, go ask a human instead of those fucking jerks at snopes and wiki.
You didn't read it years ago, you read it recently, since your post is word-for-word (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=rfmiWoqPNsPYtQW2maTQCA&q=%22In+early+1947%2C+CORE+announced+plans%22&oq=%22In+early+1947%2C+CORE+announced+plans%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1345.4993.0.5314.10.7.2.0.0.0.104.508.5j1.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.4.303.6..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.82.SV5nfSJzcA4) plagiarizing (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5259-rosa-parks-was-it-a-set-up/) of one (https://www.google.com/search?ei=rfqiWpCDOsrksAX0wqfoAQ&q=%22In+early+1955%2C+Claudette+Colvin%22&oq=%22In+early+1955%2C+Claudette+Colvin%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...22188.23137.0.23362.3.3.0.0.0.0.121.288.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.119...35i39k1.0.Q1NqbZqiTZY) or various sources on the internet.
Busted.
Post by: nddons on March 09, 2018, 02:53:07 PM
You didn't read it years ago, you read it recently, since your post is word-for-word (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=rfmiWoqPNsPYtQW2maTQCA&q=%22In+early+1947%2C+CORE+announced+plans%22&oq=%22In+early+1947%2C+CORE+announced+plans%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1345.4993.0.5314.10.7.2.0.0.0.104.508.5j1.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.4.303.6..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i46k1.82.SV5nfSJzcA4) plagiarizing (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5259-rosa-parks-was-it-a-set-up/) of one (https://www.google.com/search?ei=rfqiWpCDOsrksAX0wqfoAQ&q=%22In+early+1955%2C+Claudette+Colvin%22&oq=%22In+early+1955%2C+Claudette+Colvin%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...22188.23137.0.23362.3.3.0.0.0.0.121.288.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.119...35i39k1.0.Q1NqbZqiTZY) or various sources on the internet.I knew that read like someone else’s work. Call me crazy, but I never thought of 7 as a scholar of the civil rights movement.
Busted.
To not cite it when challenged and lying about reading it years ago is just stupid.
How long did it take you to find that in the card catalog?
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
Busted.
Bullshit asswipe.
I posted that because it was what i Could find to placate link boy. So suck my dick and shut the fuckl up with your stupid pathetic need to shut down opposing views.
You progressives are all the same. Always needing some pathetic excuse to ignore everything that doesn't pander to your sick causes.
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 03:04:45 PM
I knew that read like someone else’s work. Call me crazy, but I never thought of 7 as a scholar of the civil rights movement.
To not cite it when challenged and lying about reading it years ago is just stupid.
How long did it take you to find that in the card catalog?
It was all I could find without knowing the name of publication m but it supported what I remember reading.
liberals HATE speech that doesn't support heir agenda, which is why link boy used wiki to reject alternative opinions.
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 03:09:50 PM
Bullshit asswipe.
I posted that because it was what i Could find to placate link boy. So shut the fuck up with your stupid pathetic need to shut down opposing views.
However I see that I DID fail to include the link to the paragraphs I thought I included. So you might want to make sure link boy sees it so he wont accuse you of lying.
You progressives are all the same. Always needing some pathetic excuse to ignore everything that doesn't pander to your sick causes.
Post by: asechrest on March 09, 2018, 03:33:06 PM
Bullshit asswipe.
I posted that because it was what i Could find to placate link boy. So suck my dick and shut the fuckl up with your stupid pathetic need to shut down opposing views.
You progressives are all the same. Always needing some pathetic excuse to ignore everything that doesn't pander to your sick causes.
Vodka? Scotch?
Post by: invflatspin on March 09, 2018, 04:20:10 PM
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Oxy? ;D
More like never trust what is hard to see on an Ipad.
Post by: invflatspin on March 09, 2018, 06:15:10 PM
More like never trust what is hard to see on an Ipad.
Yup, I'm getting that too. I'm on bifocals now, and doc says need trifocals. I'm losing stuff on the damn phone, and iPad as well. Sucks to get old, least for me.
Post by: Jim Logajan on March 09, 2018, 06:22:16 PM
Take your fucking, lazy, pathetic, liberal demand and shove it up your pamapered, pathetic ass.
I SAID I read it years ago, you lazy, pathetic, whiner.
YOU being a pathetic asshole, doesn't obligate me to explain something I read years ago.
That your pathetic, lazy ass needs to find solace in snopes and wiki, proves everything needed to dismiss you as someone too intellectually lazy to bother trying to have a conversation with.
If two syllable words are to hard for your weak constitution, go ask a human instead of those fucking jerks at snopes and wiki.
I'm a libertarian, not a liberal.
Post by: Number7 on March 09, 2018, 07:34:15 PM
Yup, I'm getting that too. I'm on bifocals now, and doc says need trifocals. I'm losing stuff on the damn phone, and iPad as well. Sucks to get old, least for me.
I went out this afternoon and bought a yugge monitor. You'd think I was playing Super Mario, or something.
Post by: asechrest on March 09, 2018, 09:58:11 PM
More like never trust what is hard to see on an Ipad.
Interesting comment after telling me to suck your dick. Maybe a magnifying glass is in order. ;)
Post by: Number7 on March 10, 2018, 08:43:14 AM
Interesting comment after telling me to suck your dick. Maybe a magnifying glass is in order. ;)
If you are commenting on the size, or lack there-of, of your equipment, you must be Bryan standing in for asechrest today.
Has he been around lately, playing the sham-a-lam-a thing?
Post by: nddons on March 10, 2018, 09:25:14 AM
It was all I could find without knowing the name of publication m but it supported what I remember reading.Well I’m no liberal, but I do know that the best way to win an argument is with verifiable facts. We all deserve to get called on things we state as facts without having support.
liberals HATE speech that doesn't support heir agenda, which is why link boy used wiki to reject alternative opinions.
To be fair I NEVER heard your version, and I’m a pretty good student of US history.
Post by: bflynn on March 10, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
I'm a libertarian, not a liberal.
He doesn't know the difference.
Post by: Number7 on March 10, 2018, 02:11:49 PM
I'm a libertarian, not a liberal.
SURE you are...