Perhaps I should have specified what was meant by "civil rights" because that's a huge umbrella. I only meant that every American child should be afforded the same rights.
I'm not on board with forcing businesses to hire based on race, or to force private clubs to look likes Pharma ad.
So I am somewhat with you. I think if people are going to be in America, every man needs to be treated equally under the law. However, that doesn't mean just surrendering the country to "minorities" because there's more of them. If we do that, there won't be a country worth calling home. Therefore, my solution is deportations. Once only the people that are supposed to be here are here, then at least the men can have equal rights.
More directly to the CRA: having to admit blacks to your business is the opposite of freedom of association. You simply can't have both.
How did civil rights lead to a loss of freedom to associate? Or stealing property rights?
If you can't discriminate, you don't have the freedom to associate.
If you are forced to make hiring decisions based on race then you don't have property rights over your business.
Perhaps I should have specified what was meant by "civil rights" because that's a huge umbrella. I only meant that every American child should be afforded the same rights.
I'm not on board with forcing businesses to hire based on race, or to force private clubs to look likes Pharma ad.
So I am somewhat with you. I think if people are going to be in America, every man needs to be treated equally under the law. However, that doesn't mean just surrendering the country to "minorities" because there's more of them. If we do that, there won't be a country worth calling home. Therefore, my solution is deportations. Once only the people that are supposed to be here are here, then at least the men can have equal rights.
More directly to the CRA: having to admit blacks to your business is the opposite of freedom of association. You simply can't have both.
I mean the text of the 1964 civil rights act. Every actionable provision is anti-property rights, anti-association, and anti-state sovereignty.
Even if you agree with the law on its face, it has been used to launder in the idea of "disparate impact" which is a fundamentally anti White concept.
Gotcha. No argument from me there.