If feeling that gays and blacks and women should have the rights as white heterosexual males, then I am definitely liberal.
As for elitist, I can't think of anything more elitist than telling trying to disallow the rights to others because you disagree with who they choose to love. I bet you were against Loving v. Virginia back in 1967 and probably wish that schools were still segregated.
Ya know they still have this entire group of schools that is very, very segregated and they don't even try to hide it. There's actually over 100 of them...
Ya know they still have this entire group of schools that is very, very segregated and they don't even try to hide it. There's actually over 100 of them...
Which school exhibit niggardliness against civil rights by refusing to allow racial mixing?
Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Legal challenges are already being prepared, I think they are just waiting for the remaining 2 million votes to be counted.
What you say about 'the will of the people' is also correct. It goes without saying that we wouldn't be seeing the election of a black American today had the civil rights battles of the 1960s been decided by public referenda.
According to exit polls, age was a key factor, with the exit polls showing voters under 30 opposing the ban by a 2-to-1 ratio, while most voters of 60 and older supported the ban. 81% of UCLA students voted against Proposition 8.
The opposition to gay marriage is softening and as the closeness of the vote suggests, once the dinosaurs have become extinct it will be accepted
Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.
That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Just because gay marriage is not allowed it doesn't mean that gays are being picked on. Show me in the Constitution where it says that gays have a "right" to re-define marriage. I love the way you put this, because the majority voted not to allow gay marriage then that is an example of tyranny. The victors are tyrannical because you don't agree with their position on the issue.
Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.
Actually no, they aren't. If that were true there would be at least 1 all-white private college in America. In fact there isn't and never will be. It's the conundrum of it's only racist if it's against the minority - feel free to discriminate against the majority, that's ok...
And actually there are quite a number of public colleges that are exclusionary not only in name but in practice. Making people of other races feel alienated ON PURPOSE but for the sake of "tradition" yet no one runs around screaming racism. Talk about a double standard...
Just because gay marriage is not allowed it doesn't mean that gays are being picked on. Show me in the Constitution where it says that gays have a "right" to re-define marriage. I love the way you put this, because the majority voted not to allow gay marriage then that is an example of tyranny. The victors are tyrannical because you don't agree with their position on the issue.
— Show me in the Constitution where it says women have the right to redefine who has the right to vote?
— Show me in the Constitution where it says "negros" have the right to abolish slavery?
— Show me in the Constitution where it says that freedom of religion, speech or the press is unalienable?
It doesn't, which is why these are Amendments that were added later to establish and protect civil liberties. Eventually, the bigoted old gays who have had to painfully deal with their bitter secrets of same sex desires for 70 years will die off. leaving the younger non-homophobic generations able to vote for civil liberties. You have to know that it's inevitable, just by the virtue that it is even a proposition on election ballots.
That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
That's actually what he's saying. If you don't accept funds you're by definition private and thus can have whatever admission standards you want (theoretically)
EDIT: Side note - I can't believe we actually made it to 1000! impressive... And naturally you had it! Dang it! :-P
That's actually what he's saying. If you don't accept funds you're by definition private and thus can have whatever admission standards you want (theoretically)
EDIT: Side note - I can't believe we actually made it to 1000! impressive... And naturally you had it! Dang it! :-P
He said federal, not government, which implies that schools that get funding from local or state governments can segregate as much as they wish. The 14th clearly stipulates that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
Name one public school that does not accept federal funds. You are ignoring private schools, and our basic right of freedom of association. That does not have to be race based.
Earlier you accused me of being a racist, and you have absolutely nothing to back that up with, EXCEPT, it fits with your little tantrum over being on the losing end of the gay marriage issue. It shows just how misinformed you are.
Name one public school that does not accept federal funds. You are ignoring private schools, and our basic right of freedom of association. That does not have to be race based.
Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.
Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.
Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Actually you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Zin's saying all public school accept federal funds and thus have to abide by the rules so the argument about state's making the law is moot. You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment. The end result is exactly the same for both. He says no public schools can discriminate and you say no public schools can discriminate.
But again there are public colleges that encourage racism and they are very well loved and encouraged...
Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.
Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Gobbledegook! There are no public schools that don't accept federal funds. Every public school has their hand out for fed money. Are you just being obtuse? We all know that public schools are not private schools. Shessh!
Private schools are not bound by the same laws as publicly funded schools, period.
Actually you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Zin's saying all public school accept federal funds and thus have to abide by the rules so the argument about state's making the law is moot. You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment. The end result is exactly the same for both. He says no public schools can discriminate and you say no public schools can discriminate.
But again there are public colleges that encourage racism and they are very well loved and encouraged...
You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment.
I never said some don't accept funds. I only tried to clarify that Zinfella's statement about it being Federal funds was not accurate, as it applies to non-Federal government funding, too.
I never said some don't accept funds. I only tried to clarify that Zinfella's statement about it being Federal funds was not accurate, as it applies to non-Federal government funding, too.
right, guess I left out the word Federal. That was my intent - strictly talking about federal funds. But, you're right. Accepting federal funds isn't really the gotcha - it's accepting any find of public funds. But Zin says they all accept federal funds so, moot.
In addition to Apple's donation being in vain, they've also angered a lot of people. Obviously this applies to google as well. I for one am overjoyed that Prop. 8 passed. Marriage is between a man and a woman only. It is both a lie and a perversion to advocate marriage between the same sex. You can label me a bigot all you want but two people of the same sex cannot have a child together. A family can only come from the union of a man and woman.
It's a sick and backwards society that condones and accommodates a perverted lifestyle like homosexuality, child molestation, pornography and sex before marriage.
Private schools are not bound by the same laws as publicly funded schools, period.
There are some rules they are bound to if they wish to get a tax break as private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies are not entitled to federal tax exemption per the IRS. This tax exemption was dropped from BJU in 1970. They tried to fight it and failed, but have since allowed blacks into their schools and as of 2005 allow interracial dating, but have no refilled for the exemption despite the likelihood of it being reinstated.
Comments
If feeling that gays and blacks and women should have the rights as white heterosexual males, then I am definitely liberal.
As for elitist, I can't think of anything more elitist than telling trying to disallow the rights to others because you disagree with who they choose to love. I bet you were against Loving v. Virginia back in 1967 and probably wish that schools were still segregated.
Ya know they still have this entire group of schools that is very, very segregated and they don't even try to hide it. There's actually over 100 of them...
Ya know they still have this entire group of schools that is very, very segregated and they don't even try to hide it. There's actually over 100 of them...
Which school exhibit niggardliness against civil rights by refusing to allow racial mixing?
Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Legal challenges are already being prepared, I think they are just waiting for the remaining 2 million votes to be counted.
What you say about 'the will of the people' is also correct. It goes without saying that we wouldn't be seeing the election of a black American today had the civil rights battles of the 1960s been decided by public referenda.
According to exit polls, age was a key factor, with the exit polls showing voters under 30 opposing the ban by a 2-to-1 ratio, while most voters of 60 and older supported the ban. 81% of UCLA students voted against Proposition 8.
The opposition to gay marriage is softening and as the closeness of the vote suggests, once the dinosaurs have become extinct it will be accepted
Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.
Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.
That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Just because gay marriage is not allowed it doesn't mean that gays are being picked on. Show me in the Constitution where it says that gays have a "right" to re-define marriage. I love the way you put this, because the majority voted not to allow gay marriage then that is an example of tyranny. The victors are tyrannical because you don't agree with their position on the issue.
Which school e
Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.
Actually no, they aren't. If that were true there would be at least 1 all-white private college in America. In fact there isn't and never will be. It's the conundrum of it's only racist if it's against the minority - feel free to discriminate against the majority, that's ok...
And actually there are quite a number of public colleges that are exclusionary not only in name but in practice. Making people of other races feel alienated ON PURPOSE but for the sake of "tradition" yet no one runs around screaming racism. Talk about a double standard...
Just because gay marriage is not allowed it doesn't mean that gays are being picked on. Show me in the Constitution where it says that gays have a "right" to re-define marriage. I love the way you put this, because the majority voted not to allow gay marriage then that is an example of tyranny. The victors are tyrannical because you don't agree with their position on the issue.
That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
That's actually what he's saying. If you don't accept funds you're by definition private and thus can have whatever admission standards you want (theoretically)
EDIT: Side note - I can't believe we actually made it to 1000! impressive... And naturally you had it! Dang it! :-P
That's actually what he's saying. If you don't accept funds you're by definition private and thus can have whatever admission standards you want (theoretically)
EDIT: Side note - I can't believe we actually made it to 1000! impressive... And naturally you had it! Dang it! :-P
He said federal, not government, which implies that schools that get funding from local or state governments can segregate as much as they wish. The 14th clearly stipulates that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
Name one public school that does not accept federal funds. You are ignoring private schools, and our basic right of freedom of association. That does not have to be race based.
Earlier you accused me of being a racist, and you have absolutely nothing to back that up with, EXCEPT, it fits with your little tantrum over being on the losing end of the gay marriage issue. It shows just how misinformed you are.
Name one public school that does not accept federal funds. You are ignoring private schools, and our basic right of freedom of association. That does not have to be race based.
Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.
Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.
Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Actually you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Zin's saying all public school accept federal funds and thus have to abide by the rules so the argument about state's making the law is moot. You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment. The end result is exactly the same for both. He says no public schools can discriminate and you say no public schools can discriminate.
But again there are public colleges that encourage racism and they are very well loved and encouraged...
Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.
Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Gobbledegook! There are no public schools that don't accept federal funds. Every public school has their hand out for fed money. Are you just being obtuse? We all know that public schools are not private schools. Shessh!
Private schools are not bound by the same laws as publicly funded schools, period.
Actually you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Zin's saying all public school accept federal funds and thus have to abide by the rules so the argument about state's making the law is moot. You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment. The end result is exactly the same for both. He says no public schools can discriminate and you say no public schools can discriminate.
But again there are public colleges that encourage racism and they are very well loved and encouraged...
Bob Jones University.
You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment.
I never said some don't accept funds. I only tried to clarify that Zinfella's statement about it being Federal funds was not accurate, as it applies to non-Federal government funding, too.
I never said some don't accept funds. I only tried to clarify that Zinfella's statement about it being Federal funds was not accurate, as it applies to non-Federal government funding, too.
right, guess I left out the word Federal. That was my intent - strictly talking about federal funds. But, you're right. Accepting federal funds isn't really the gotcha - it's accepting any find of public funds. But Zin says they all accept federal funds so, moot.
Or "Mooo point" as Joey would say
It's a sick and backwards society that condones and accommodates a perverted lifestyle like homosexuality, child molestation, pornography and sex before marriage.
Private schools are not bound by the same laws as publicly funded schools, period.
There are some rules they are bound to if they wish to get a tax break as private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies are not entitled to federal tax exemption per the IRS. This tax exemption was dropped from BJU in 1970. They tried to fight it and failed, but have since allowed blacks into their schools and as of 2005 allow interracial dating, but have no refilled for the exemption despite the likelihood of it being reinstated.