Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (80835)	7/6/2004 10:01:53 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"a highly qualified applicant who is a member of a race (or certain other types of groups) that is hated by the perspective employer has a right to be hired" No. Not at all. It simply means he/she has a right to be considered on the same basis as other humans--that is to say--on the basis of whether he/she is the best applicant for the job in the opinion of the employer--but without that opinion being entirely informed by racial hatred. "As for Amendment IX you have it exactly backwards" No, I gave it forwards. It is what it is. "it doesn't give powers to the government" The Government has the Constitutional authority to uphold and protect all Rights granted in the Constitution. That is the point of having a Constitution. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." "It states that people's rights are not limited to what the Constitution explicitly states" That is what it says; and that is what I repeated. Now as to your quibbling over Federal Rights, State Rights, and individual Rights--there is no need. Constitutionally, the people are both the State and the United States. Now when it says that Government has the POWER to PROTECT the Rights of people...it means just that. If you prefer to translate "power" as "authority" rather than "right"--please be my guest. It changes the intent nor the meaning not one whit: The Government has the AUTHORITY to PROTECT the Rights of people. And people have Rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and the Government is of, for, and by the people. Government has the AUTHORITY (if you prefer) to PROTECT the equality of people under the law. The reference to "protection" does not refer to protection by the moon...it refers to protection by the Government. And the foremost way in which a Government protects the Rights of her citizens is by enacting laws to do so. "If the law treats everyone fairly and equally then you have equal protection of the law." I would like you to notice the words "ALL" and "EQUAL" in the following: SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. "they are at least in part unconstitutional, and also unjustly infringe on people's freedom." Those enacting the laws and many similar ones over the decades did not think so. The Courts who have revisited parts of these laws and met the challenges of lawyers, individuals, and groups did not think so. Obviously I do not think so. As to your contrary opinion...you have every right to it; but in looking back through your posts I do not find one single fact put forward by you that seems compelling on behalf of your position. The Government clearly has the Constitutional authority to enact laws which protect the Rights of people--not all of which are listed in the Constitution---but all equally guaranteed by the Constitution. In the rare cases where the law refers to some people rather than all (such as restricting the rights of certain age groups to drive or enter contracts)....there are valid and compelling reasons for such discrimination. Equal protection means that ALL people must be protected from murder and other forms of mistreatment. "Protection" does not mean that the Government paint the arena walls while the lions feast. Painting the wall does not protect. I mean....do you REALLY believe that Pinhead's private taxi service should be allowed to deny service to all Asians? What if his brother (who owns all 11 car dealerships in the State decides that no Asian may buy a vehicle from him? What if these particular firms all decided to not serve American citizens of asian extraction?? Altria Associated British Foods plc British American Tobacco Cadbury Schweppes Compass Group General Mills The Gillette Company GlaxoSmithKline Mars Nestle Proctor & Gamble Sara Lee Tata United Biscuits Unilever Let us just consider General Mills, for example: General Mills Big G Cereals Basic 4 Berry Berry Kix Chex Corn Cocoa Puffs Cookie Crisp Count Chocula Country Corn Flakes Fiber One Franken Berry French Toast Crunch Gold Medal Raisan Brand Harmony Kaboom Kix Lucky Charms Oatmeal Crisp Para Su Reese's Peanut Butter Puffs Snack n Dash Team Cheerios Total Trix Wheaties Bettys Kitchen Green Giant Lloyds Business Old El Paso Progresso Yoplait Dunkaroos Fruit by The Foot Fruit Roll Ups Fruit Shapes Gardettos Nature Valley Pop Secret Wahoos Bacos Bits Bacos Chips Bowl Appetit Chicken Helper Hamburger Helper Potato Buds Potato Specialty Suddenly Salad Tuna Helper Bisquik Bowl Apetit Betty Crocker Bisquik Angel Food Brownie Mix Bread Machine Mix Dessert Bars Frosting Rich Frosting Whipped Gold Medal Muffin Mix Pancake Mix Pie Crust Mix Pineapple Upside-down cake mix Pouch Mix Pound Cake Quick Bread Shake n Pour Snackin' Cake Stir n Bake SuperMoist Sweet Rewards Wondra Flour Colombo Blended Colombo Classic Expresse Go-Gurt Trix Yoplait Custard Yumsters Pillsbury Big Country Biscuits Breadsticks Cookies Chocolate Cookies Flag Cookies Ghost Cookies Gingerbread Cookies MMs Cookies Peanut Butter Cookies Rudolph Crescent Rolls Dinner Rolls Fresh Bread Grands! Biscuits Home Baked Classics Hungry Jack Pet Ritz Pie Crust Pillsbury Pancakes Pillsbury Waffles Sweet Rolls Dulce de Leche Caramel Toaster Scrambles Toaster Strudel Turnovers Apple Turnovers Cherry Small Planet Foods CF Bagged Fruits CF Bagged Vegetables CF Cereals CF Entrees CF Fancy Fruits CF Frozen Yogurt CF Ice Cream CF Juice CF Meals CF Pickles CF Potatoes CF Quickstart CF Sauerkraut CF Sorbet CF Vegetable Blends CF Veggie & Chicken Bowl CF Veggie Bowl CF Yogurt Bar MG Diced Tomatoes MG Chunky Tomato Sauce MG 100% Vegetable Juice MG Grill Chef Barbeque Sauce MG Pasta Sauce MG Pizza Sauce MG Salsa MG Tomato Juice MG Tomato Paste MG Tomato Sauce MG Whole Peeled Tomatoes There is no Constitutional difference between denying food to distinct groups because of racism, than forcing people of distinct groups to have unequal* transportation rights (sit at the back of the bus). So if you believe that people have no right to buy food (i.e. no right to eat), then it is a small step in kindness for you to grant them the right to sit on a bus. No, Tim...sorry: Equal protection under the law DOES empower Governments to enact laws which prevent people from being denied essential services or the right to opportunity in the marketplace. Pretending that "protection" equates to "non-interference" is just plain silly.