Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
EgyptKang

South Dakota lawmaker starts down slippery slope to segregation

31 posts in this topic

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article212771884.html

South Dakota state Rep. Michael Clark. On Monday, Clark, being presumably of sound mind and body, suggested on Facebook that maybe racial segregation wouldn’t be such a bad idea. A businessman, he wrote, “should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, that’s his choice.

I called it.  I said since the baker won the case regarding turning away LGBTQ's  that this was next.  That train is never late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did apologize and said he would never turn away a customer because of race.  So what other categories would he still want to discriminate against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/06/south-dakota-lawmaker-apologizes-post-says-very-racist-michael-clark-civil-rights-act-scotus/676716002/

 

Quote

A day after a South Dakota lawmaker said business owners should be able to turn away customers based on their race in a Facebook post, he publicly apologized through the same medium.

In a post late Tuesday night, Rep. Michael Clark said comments he'd made earlier in the week were "very racist."

"I made some comments here on Facebook, defending a Colorado Baker decision not create a cake for a Homosexual [sic] wedding," he wrote in a post on Tuesday. "The comments I made were very racist. I would like to apologize for those comments. Businesses should not be able to discriminate solely based on race, sex, national origin, age, or handicap."

Still something weasely about his words.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like he was posting on Facebook while drunk. Unless he is actually that stupid. Could be either, I suppose. I sometimes wonder about some of the posts that appear on this forum being caused by a drunken stupor or perhaps just naturally sober stupidity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's simply expressing the libertarian point of view. Rand Paul feels the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Baltimatt said:

He did apologize and said he would never turn away a customer because of race.  So what other categories would he still want to discriminate against?

Well, in his apology he didn't mention sexual orientation.

You have to wonder how troglodytes like this guy get elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

Well, in his apology he didn't mention sexual orientation.

You have to wonder how troglodytes like this guy get elected.

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in a lot of public accommodation laws, including the federal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hst2 said:

He's simply expressing the libertarian point of view. Rand Paul feels the same way.

Compared to my perception: 

Most libertarians would hold that they have no issue with individuals holding negative views (whether they be racist, homophobic, or whatever), but would be against such individuals acting on such negative views to the detriment of any other individual.

However, on the other hand, I perceive that many people on the far left end of the progressive scale would espouse that even holding such negative views and having the audacity to talk about them should be considered criminal and subject to government action. The old "freedom of speech as long as your speech agrees with mine" gambit.

Sort of like how you would like to see people treated who happen to disagree with your theories about race. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Papi said:

Compared to my perception: 

Most libertarians would hold that they have no issue with individuals holding negative views (whether they be racist, homophobic, or whatever), but would be against such individuals acting on such negative views to the detriment of any other individual.

However, on the other hand, I perceive that many people on the far left end of the progressive scale would espouse that even holding such negative views and having the audacity to talk about them should be considered criminal and subject to government action. The old "freedom of speech as long as your speech agrees with mine" gambit.

Sort of like how you would like to see people treated who happen to disagree with your theories about race. :rolleyes:

Lots of speculation in this post... mostly because I think you'll post anything, no matter how ridiculous, just to antagonize hst2.  You "perceive" such ridiculous things about those on the far left based on what?  I mean, your opinion has to be based on something right?

As to your view of "most liberatrians"... the ones I've heard have flat out said the exact opposite of what you just described.  They have no issue with individuals holding negative views AND they should be perfectly within their rights to run their business that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy should resign, but I don't think it's a slippery slope to anything. Just another idiot in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, banner1124 said:

Lots of speculation in this post... mostly because I think you'll post anything, no matter how ridiculous, just to antagonize hst2.  You "perceive" such ridiculous things about those on the far left based on what?  I mean, your opinion has to be based on something right?

As to your view of "most liberatrians"... the ones I've heard have flat out said the exact opposite of what you just described.  They have no issue with individuals holding negative views AND they should be perfectly within their rights to run their business that way. 

Libertarians tend to denounce discrimination, but they do support an ideology that allows it to flourish. It is on the individual to make the right choice. They believe that if a business owner discriminated based on race or what have you, people will not shop at their store. The market, not the government, should punish them.. 

The flaw in this, of course, is that our culture has discrimination baked into it. But they do not really believe in history of marginalized groups. You may notice that the concept of white supremacy and its effects seem to elude them. They believe that we are all a "clean slate", utterly unaffected by our past, and thus, are free to do the right thing, or the wrong thing, without regard to our history of giving some groups advantages over others. I suspect the concept of separate being inherently unequal in our society bears no meaning for them.

Libertarianism is very attractive on paper. Like most popular ideologies, it comes into conflict with the complexities of real life. Those who believe in such things tend to swing with ideology. Its easier and simpler. And, if you've ever seen these fellows in action, and Lord knows we have seen it here, they tend to think they have all the answers and are very critical of we fools who see the world as a complex place with a variety of competing influences.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Baltimatt said:

He did apologize and said he would never turn away a customer because of race.  So what other categories would he still want to discriminate against?

Do you somehow believe racists are sincere when they apologize?

That’s the one thing I have against Liberal whites. They somehow believe they can apply logic to racists. Racists only understand hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Papi said:

Sounds like he was posting on Facebook while drunk. Unless he is actually that stupid. Could be either, I suppose. I sometimes wonder about some of the posts that appear on this forum being caused by a drunken stupor or perhaps just naturally sober stupidity. 

Maybe it was Ambien.

Most people reveal their true selves when they are drunk. I never buy that “I was drunk” or “I was on Ambien” excuse. Those people are basically playing the mental health card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dystopia said:

This guy should resign, but I don't think it's a slippery slope to anything. Just another idiot in government.

Keywords are “another idiot “. Black people have to worry about the others who don’t express themselves this freely. This guy is ok in my book (not as far as character) because we know who he is .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, banner1124 said:

Lots of speculation in this post... mostly because I think you'll post anything, no matter how ridiculous, just to antagonize hst2.  You "perceive" such ridiculous things about those on the far left based on what?  I mean, your opinion has to be based on something right?

As to your view of "most liberatrians"... the ones I've heard have flat out said the exact opposite of what you just described.  They have no issue with individuals holding negative views AND they should be perfectly within their rights to run their business that way. 

Opinions are, by definition, speculation on the part of an individual based on that individual's perception of something. That you don't happen to like mine is not particularly relevant, except to you, just as the fact that I don't agree with hst's opinions are pretty much irrelevant, except to me. That doesn't prevent any of us from expressing them here. It is an opinion forum, after all, not a news source. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Papi said:

Opinions are, by definition, speculation on the part of an individual based on that individual's perception of something. That you don't happen to like mine is not particularly relevant, except to you, just as the fact that I don't agree with hst's opinions are pretty much irrelevant, except to me. That doesn't prevent any of us from expressing them here. It is an opinion forum, after all, not a news source. :D 

Doesn't change the fact that opinions should be based on something... you've expressed on several occasions here that you have opinions on either subjects or people but don't have any rational basis for said opinions.  That, to me, is a bit strange.  Not quite as strange, however, is the fact that you go out of your way and will say the most ridiculous things just do disagree with hst2... even in situations when he's clearly right.  I mean you're free to behave that way if you like, just as I'm free to call out how utterly strange said behavior is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Baltimatt said:

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in a lot of public accommodation laws, including the federal. 

Well it seems that is some school districts it applies? Is that not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Papi said:

Compared to my perception: 

Most libertarians would hold that they have no issue with individuals holding negative views (whether they be racist, homophobic, or whatever), but would be against such individuals acting on such negative views to the detriment of any other individual.

However, on the other hand, I perceive that many people on the far left end of the progressive scale would espouse that even holding such negative views and having the audacity to talk about them should be considered criminal and subject to government action. The old "freedom of speech as long as your speech agrees with mine" gambit.

Sort of like how you would like to see people treated who happen to disagree with your theories about race. :rolleyes:

Ohhhh libertarian.....

Funny I just realized my Father was a libertarian.

His motto: 'You have the right to swing your fist as much as you want...but that right stops at my nose'.

Smart man my Dad. 

And...…..

The old "freedom of speech as long as your speech agrees with mine" gambit.

The truth!!!!!!!!

 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Doesn't change the fact that opinions should be based on something... you've expressed on several occasions here that you have opinions on either subjects or people but don't have any rational basis for said opinions.  That, to me, is a bit strange.  Not quite as strange, however, is the fact that you go out of your way and will say the most ridiculous things just do disagree with hst2... even in situations when he's clearly right.  I mean you're free to behave that way if you like, just as I'm free to call out how utterly strange said behavior is.

And are we the more conservative allowed that equal opportunity?

From my and other conservative experience that is not the case. We can present the most logical argument in the world (forget opinion) and it is only a short matter of time before you and the BOO BIRDS start raining down. 

No....you don't realize it ….but most all of you ….not all but most....have a very strict, unflinching, written in stone  position on anything that goes against your agenda:

It's my way or the highway. 

And I don't know why I bother mentioning it....because I am sure that it just runs in one ear and out the other. 

IMHO. 

Note: OPINION. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Well it seems that is some school districts it applies? Is that not true?

Some school districts, towns, cities, counties, and states.  Not everywhere and not under federal law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Some school districts, towns, cities, counties, and states.  Not everywhere and not under federal law.

Thanks for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, banner1124 said:

Doesn't change the fact that opinions should be based on something... you've expressed on several occasions here that you have opinions on either subjects or people but don't have any rational basis for said opinions.  That, to me, is a bit strange.  Not quite as strange, however, is the fact that you go out of your way and will say the most ridiculous things just do disagree with hst2... even in situations when he's clearly right.  I mean you're free to behave that way if you like, just as I'm free to call out how utterly strange said behavior is.

You have no right to question what I might base my opinions on - just perhaps the balls to think you have that right. You may disagree with my opinion on something, but that doesn't mean I don't have a rational basis for it.merely because you don't think its rational. 

And in my humble opinion I have never seen a post by hst (about race) in which he is "clearly right". He is highly opinionated , and thinks he is the final arbiter about all things racial, but that doesn't mean for even a microsecond that I must agree he is "right" (as in correct) just because he thinks he is.Or that you might, for that matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Papi said:

You have no right to question what I might base my opinions on - just perhaps the balls to think you have that right. You may disagree with my opinion on something, but that doesn't mean I don't have a rational basis for it.merely because you don't think its rational. 

And in my humble opinion I have never seen a post by hst (about race) in which he is "clearly right". He is highly opinionated , and thinks he is the final arbiter about all things racial, but that doesn't mean for even a microsecond that I must agree he is "right" (as in correct) just because he thinks he is.Or that you might, for that matter.  

He has the right to question, and you have the right to answer or withhold an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Baltimatt said:

He has the right to question, and you have the right to answer or withhold an answer.

And because he doesn't like my answer my opinion is "not rational".  Oh well, when it comes to opinions, to each his own. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0