Racist homeowners refuse to sell to black couple

[AlexMerced]

This is only true because government owns the roads. In a truly free market where the roads were privately owned it would be up to the owner of the road whether or not protesters could assemble there.

If I owned the road, the rule would be that you can protest in the road but drivers can try to run you over if they want.

agreed

 

[WaltM]

He can't remove justices. The congress could impeach them though. And he doesn't have to replace impeached / retiring / dead justices. But if you've got a "vacancy" (since everyone is conditioned to believe there's supposed to be 9) the natural inclination for the president is to fill the "vacancy" with someone willing to rubberstamp his agenda like Elana "the government can make you eat 3 veggies if it wants to" Kagan.

YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Thanks.

 

[raistlinkishtar]

skin color would be the cause if it can be shown they accepted lower offers of a different skin color. Or vindicated if they accepted another offer from a black buyer.

Whatever the cause of their decision, it's no business of ours. The only business we have is defending their right to not to be bullied by the government.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Greatest of Benefits are Derived From the Most Precious of Alterations

Their house, they can sell it to who they want.

For that matter, why would I want to give my money to a racist.

It is so hard to overcome and live in realtime. Just because the newspapers and television stations utilize the "R" acist terms of "R" acist and "R" acism doesn't mean that they aren't using the equivalent of the word "N" igger. As a writer and an intellectual myself, I like to think that I am superior to the writers who work in these shallow commercial media companies. In the universities, these people are thought of as the "N"s of the writing profession. Am I a "R" acist for claiming this? No.
In other words, I understand the true spirit of Martin Luther King. Yes, his death has more meaning than just giving a lot of kids a holiday and the opportunity to get a day off from school.
As hard as it may be for many to believe, African Americans were never the savages who danced naked around a fire. No, this was a condition brought on by an unacceptable relationship happening not just within the continent of Africa, but all over the world.
There is more to the history of tyranny than the relationship between the master and slave classes as hidden within and ignored were the untouchable outcastes rejected by master and slave alike.

 

[osan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
Should they? Do you really believe that?

Should they protest or do they have a right to do so? If the question is "should they" that's a personal opinion issue that folks can agree to disagree on. If it's do they have a right to do so, absolutely. As long as the protesters aren't on private property and aren't disturbing the peace. (Being loud, blocking traffic etc.)

We do not disagree on this.

Quote:
That is questionable, but assuming it is demonstrably true, you appear to be supporting the unjustifiable damaging of property, albeit indirectly. The policy of the sellers is none of anybody's business but theirs.
So? There's no general law against damaging property value nor should there be. If someone wrote an op-ed piece in the paper about how these sellers are first class jerks that might damage their property value to. So what? They made the choice to be jerks. Let's say if instead of this being a protest, the buyers took out a full page ad in the paper. The ad might not just discourage blacks from bidding on the house, but some non racists whites as well. If that knocked down their property value would that bother you too? Why? What about personal responsibility for your own actions?

I didn't write illegal destruction of property, but unjustifiable. As to the owners being "jerks", that is also a matter of perspective. There is no absolute judgment on these sorts of things.

Quote:
Which is overt coercion, i.e. initiation of force.
No more "force" than the "force" of a bad review on eBay.

Point taken.

Quote:
Hypocrisy has no place where the issue of freedom is concerned.
Freedom means the government can't force you to do what they want. It doesn't mean private actors can't apply social pressure.

Freedom means NOBODY can force you to what they want.