Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Honor93

 

Dead men still rule and govern in the memes they left.

You act like your rule of thumb is natural. It is not. And that it let's you govern your self. Not so. If you truely were governing your self you would not be with another. And if you were truely alone you would be different.

What of the abused child who became warped and views that rule as a reason to abuse others. He never knew how to love himself, so he can only treat others as they have treated him. Only by letting the abused govern you for a while, showing them love, can you allow them to learn love and give it back.



Ergo. No one can truely govern themselves. Society would not have progressed past the cave if this wasn't true

hell, you are on a forum. That is the very definition of partial governing by another.

if you haven't noticed, i have chosen to not respond to your posts for a reason.
you don't have to agree with my reasons, why? because they're mine, and I'm currently, governing myself

now, i do understand that YOU don't understand the concept, however, i assure you, it's possible, it's practiced by many and it's quite effective.

i could also be inclined to say that i live a much more natural life than you do but, i don't know for sure so i won't stoop to your level and claim i do.

what does "alone" have to do with self-governing?
like i said, you really don't understand, do you?

yes, the teachings of my elders (especially those who've passed) influence my being, my decisions, my actions but they do NOT govern me, i do.

i am still free to disregard all i've been taught and walk a different path ... this is also an example of self-governing.

cause and effect is NOT self-governing ... when you learn the difference, please contribute something of value.

reply to post by Honor93


But you won't. You can, but you won't. You are not governing yourself. Their memes are.

Fact is, the only way you ever could govern yourself, is if you were born blind, mute, deaf, without taste or smell, and without feeling. Total separation of the real world. But then again, there would be no way to identify the self if we could look into this mind. We don't even know if we would find something bordering reality. This mind may end up creating dozens of personalities and being all of the, and yet not. In fact, this mind would not be governing itself. It would simply be generating rules for which its own reality to exist within.


Don't reply if you wish. I don't actually notice.

Originally posted by Misoir
Skin color is not irrelevant, anyone with a functioning brain and not blinded by egalitarian PC nonsense could tell you that. With different race comes different culture, physical features, genetic traits, which effect IQ even (uh oh I went there!) It is nice to live in a fantasy land where your ideology creates the truth, but truth is blind to any personal ideology no matter how hard you try and dismiss it.

Not all black people are the same, which is clearly what you're implying. If you believe that, then you're clearly the one living in fantasy land.

Are you an elitist or what? I suppose everyone is equal so long as they agree with you but when they have a dissenting point of view they are "stubbornly living backwards". Everyone should know it is true by now; the most intolerant people are the intellectually liberalized. The multikulti group think has sure done a number on our society.

Racism is a backwards and stubborn ideology (I really shouldn't have to explain why), ergo the people who are racist are by definition backwards and stubborn.

But I guess you will only be happy once every race, or more specifically the white race, commits genocide against itself and everyone is brown, uninteresting, un-unique, and all the lowest common denominator.

Yes, supporting interracial marraige clearly means you want to see the white race die out. You're not alone though. There's a certain group of people out there who shares those same sentiments.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by fiftyfifty

Please somebody enlighten me on why it is a bad thing to be mixed race.

Because people won't be able to categorize you if you're mixed!
(shakes fist)
Curse you! You demographic ruiner, you!

Pretty much.

Originally posted by Honor93

Those laws don't apply now, and they ain't coming back, but thay wasn't the point.

according to you it is ... your opening sentence reads ...

Yep, pritty sad this kind of mentality and ignorance still exists in society, not surprising though:

perhaps you meant to say it differently but it reads as it does.

There is an obvious difference between me stating that there are racists in society, and that the laws that mandated racism in society don't exist. In the OP I clearly distinguished the two, and everybody got it, excepting for you, apparently. One part of the OP referred to private individuals and organisations, the other referred to public laws and regulations over the matter. Racists still exist, the laws that mandated racial segregation and same race marriages, don't any longer.

And, the mentality that existed then to create and enforce such laws, DOES NOT exist today.

I never denied that the support for racial segregation and interracial marriages don't exist, I was specifically referring to the laws, not to the support from private individuals over the legal legitimacy of these laws and the rights of states. Both you and Misoir are perfect proof that people still believe that states should have this kind of authority over americans. You both argued that state governments have legitimate authority to force racial segregation on american citizens. You also argued that state governments have the authority to tell people whom they can and cannot marry based on race. This was your position.

Apparently the rights of states matter more to you than the rights of individual americans, plain and simple. By the sounds of it you're either trying to sugar coat your position, or you're trying to make as if you never held it.

if you knew history or bothered to look, you would realize the Brown case included the SCOTUS' admission that it was their opinion that the 14th amendment was previously misinterpreted / misrepresented.

you lead me to think "human error" isn't a good enough reason for you, is that the case?

Human error would imply that somebody understands where they were wrong about the something. This wasn't the case for supporters of state mandated racial segregation and interracial marriage bans. People still to this day believe that states must have the authority first and formost to enforce these laws on their citizens, including you and misoir. This isn't human error, this is a belief, a position.

So you agree with the SCOTUS ruling on the Brown case?

this isn't a concern for the government of today

Well no it's not, thanks to the intervention of the Federal government and the SCOTUS nearly 50 years ago. Had it not been for their actions, it would be a concern today, which was the point in my OP. Misoir however was unhappy with my statement, saying that the federal goverment and SCOTUS had no legal business in this matter, you agreed with Misoir.

i agreed that State governments did have said right until it was Constitutionally decided otherwise.

you don't even know your position anymore do you? In the original post I stated that the Federal government and the supreme court was right in intervening and stripping the rights of states to enforce racial segregation and anti interracial marriages of its citizens. Misoir outright disagreed, and argued that neither the federal government nor the supreme courts had the right to overrule the decisions of state governments. You had absolutely no issue agreeing with Misoir, and clarified this in your posts. Your comment above contradicts your previous posts before. If the federal government and the supreme court didn't have the right to intervene back then, by your logic, they never held that authority, even to this day. It sounds to me as though you're now saying the supreme court and the federal government was in their right in intervening, meaning you disagree with Misoir?

So which is it? You can't be both.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

that the laws that mandated racism in society don't exist

and this would be because NO such laws ever existed until the newest hate speech laws were implemented.

even during segregation which was mandated, NO ONE was forced to HATE anyone.
and Hate is what racism is about. look it up.

hate is a condition of the mind, not the soul and certainly not the spirit.

if ppl "got it" in the OP, why is your opinion still being discussed 18 pgs later?
and not only by me.

NO prior LAWS have EVER mandated racism ... this is your error, not mine.

and for the record, this church isn't advocating Hate, either. they are simply choosing to adhere to their individual belief system (right or wrong isn't up to you)

neither of us argued ANY such thing. perhaps you should slow down and read it again.
and, from the beginning, until 1883, it was commonly accepted that the States did have the right to do so ... then, when Plessy pulled his stunt, it soon became National policy. not racism but segregation.

now, you can wrap the two around each other all you want but it doesn't make it so.

i said nothing about the state enforcing nuptial decisions, i and Misoir specifically stated it's NONE of the government's business.

yes, the rights of the state matter to me, i'm part of the state in which i reside.
i don't believe the rights of an individual should vary from state to state, hence federal laws ... which i have always supported the 14th amendment. how do you surmise otherwise?

so, because an industry (slavery) occurred, everyone who descends from a slave-owner is eternally obligated to what in your mind? racism ??????
good luck with that viewpoint.

obviously, you don't know the evolution of the laws so please stop trying to alter the facts.
Plessy v Ferguson led to segregation ... (and let's not forget Plessy was a pale black man who set out to intentionally and successfully deceive the railroad that hosted his presence)

Brown v Education reversed the previous error.
your choice to ignore this is your choice but don't go around forcing it on others.

do you even know what was the ruling in the Brown case?
yes, i agree with some of it ... is it necessary to agree with the entire opinion of the court?

when will you accept that the Fed government did NOT intervene ... the PEOPLE did.
If Brown had not been brought before the courts, what would have changed the Plessy ruling?
clearly, the Constitutional Amendment hasn't changed.

i still don't believe the courts have any business in this matter or the Feds for that matter.
It is an individual choice and should be left to those involved.

segregationist activities happen in every state, every year and are often sponsored by some of the least known separatists around. why aren't you protesting or criticizing them? what is so special about Kentucky, Stella and Ticha ???

i stand firm in my position, can you?

Federal government and the supreme court was right in intervening and stripping the rights of states to enforce racial segregation and anti interracial marriages of its citizens.

just because you perceive it happened that way doesn't mean it did.
once more, the Federal government NOR the Supreme Court intervened ... CITIZENS did.
and that my friend, i will support almost any day.

edit to add: you seem to conveniently forget that for 50yrs before Plessy v Ferguson, segregation practices were naturally declining ... Plessy's actions interrupted the process and left a stain that took nearly 60yrs to repair.


and, since you're hung up on this "white oppression" schtick, i think i'll remind you of one other little factoid ... Homer Plessy, the man whose actions resulted in National Segregation, was a pale Black man, not a whitey.

Originally posted by Honor93
and this would be because NO such laws ever existed until the newest hate speech laws were implemented.

Laws that force americans of different races to be segregated, laws that bar americans from marrying one another merely because of their skin color. These laws are by nature racist, and for decades, state governments have used force to keep Americans seperate. Yes, there was no law forcing a person to be racist, this wasn't what I implied obviously. I'm sure you understood full well my point.

and for the record, this church isn't advocating Hate, either. they are simply choosing to adhere to their individual belief system

Whether you consider it hatred, or racialist, or just belief, it's still racism to me. You don't see it as racist? That's your view. I mean you clearly sympathize with them, and, like misoir, you've deluded yourself to thinking it's anything but racist. I'm not going tell you or the church what you must believe, it's purely up to you.

perhaps you should slow down and read it again.
and, from the beginning, until 1883, it was commonly accepted that the States did have the right to do so

I'm not denying this. It was believed that States at the time had the right to racially segregate American citizens. It was also believed at one time that slavery was a legitimate practice, and states had legitimate authority to allow. That doesn't mean that states should be left to these decisions. Misoirs point from the start, and one that you agreed with, was that these matters should be left to the State, that the federal government and SCOTUS never had authority to intervene. By his logic, states can still make this decisions today and strip freedoms from Americans. You agreed with his position.

i and Misoir specifically stated it's NONE of the government's business.

No, Misoir stated that it's none of the Federal governments business. Apparently it's perfectly justifiable for the states to force these laws on American citizens. You agreed with his position. This wasn't about the individual's rights.

i don't believe the rights of an individual should vary from state to state, hence federal laws

So then you don't agree with Misoir's position. He believes that these rights should be left to the State Governments. Interracial marriage, racial segregation, State governments should still be authorized to decide on these matters. Make up your mind.

when will you accept that the Fed government did NOT intervene ... the PEOPLE did.

A minority of American citizens stood up for individual rights at a time when the majority of Americans still supported racial segregation and interracial marriage bans. SCOTUS and the Federal government eventually intervened and overruled the ability of States to continue enforcing these laws.

So did the people intervene? Well if you're implying the majority, no, the people unfortunately stood silent.

i still don't believe the courts have any business in this matter or the Feds for that matter.
It is an individual choice and should be left to those involved.

This doesn't make sense. You say that this should be left to the individual, true, but the individual wouldn't of had the choice had the Feds and SCOTUS not intervened in the 60's and 50's. When will people like you understand that State rights and individual rights are different. Some state governments of the time insisted this was the decision left to them, not the individual american. The Feds and SCOTUS intervened and declared these issues that of the individual. Today, if you don't agree with interracial marriage, you don't have to have one, if you love somebody of a different race, you can have one. If you go to a public park, you share it with other american citizens of different races. The State government cannot dictate these matters to you. These are private matters, it's none of the States business.

Misoir disagreed, he agrees that States rights trump individual rights and decisions over this matter, and you agreed with him. (He claimed he personally disagrees, which doesn't make a difference to his legal position on the matter).

segregationist activities happen in every state, every year and are often sponsored by some of the least known separatists around. why aren't you protesting or criticizing them?

Is there a black church you want to talk about? By all means.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by antonia

 

good because confusing race with nationality should give you headache.
British, Irish, Hungarian are NOT races in and of themselves, they are nationalities.
if and when you sort that out, please offer a valid opinion.

psssst: bloodlines can identify a racial purity but often serve to prove just the opposite ...see Jefferson's descendent arguments for details.

personal disclosure: when i first started tracing my family name, the first 1/2 dozen families i met and garnered info from were black ... i am not (on the surface).
i have not yet connected the exact dot which blended our races but i'm sure i will eventually. (goodness it's a big family)

point here is this ... we need to quit judging the book by its cover, simple.

Except the person I was replying to specifically mentioned nationalities. I don't care about you and didn't reply to you. There is no one "white" (as whites from different areas have different features) race so just mating white to white is still race mixing.

Things like this are why I do not trust people and businesses to act in good faith if some of the property rights re: discrimination are amended as some in Washington wish to see. Many have in the past argued that overturning anti-discrimination language in property rights laws would not result in a return to this kind of discrimination. Yet here it is.

Could it be an isolated incident? Sure, I suppose. But I'm not willing to take that risk, personally.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

No, i don't agree with your point. segregation and racism are not interchangeable or directly connected.
many ppl harbor racism who have NEVER experienced segregation ... how do you explain that?

Laws that force americans of different races to be segregated, laws that bar americans from marrying one another merely because of their skin color. These laws are by nature racist, and for decades, state governments have used force to keep Americans seperate.

i would agree with some of this but laws themselves cannot be racist, only humans can.
also, try not to forget those laws were implemented directly resulting from the actions of a black man, why are you blaming government or whitey?

it may not have been what you implied but it IS what you typed.

like i said before, your perception doesn't make it so.
and, you can repeat it 10,000 times, that still doesn't make it so.

i sympathize with all americans who choose to live as they see fit so long as it harms no other. so, back to the question you refuse to answer ... how is this church harming anyone?

are you really trying to imply ... since this church refuses to host/participate in the nuptials, that Stella & Ticha can never marry?
surely not ... even if the church was a group of 'racists', it still couldn't stop Stella & Ticha from marrying.

on a similar note, have the Westboro bunch stopped any funerals from happening? no.
have they convinced the nation to join their brand of racism ?? no.
well ok, have they harmed you or your life/family directly ?? nope?
then why challenge either chuch?

gooooood, cause i don't do commercialized churches of any kind.
i have transcended such nonsense.
hey, if you want to continue dragging the racist ball & chain around, be my guest.

That doesn't mean that states should be left to these decisions.

Constitutionally, yes it did. do try to remember that the 14th Amendment was not part of the original draft.
the Fed nor SCOTUS had any authority until the issue was brought to them by the court system.
IF the Fed or SC had "authority", the case wouldn't have had to be initiated by a citizen and work through the lower courts until it got to the SC.
IF the POTUS chose to exercise his "authority", he could have crafted an EO (executive order) but Lincoln nor any other did, why's that?

this is my point and probably Misoir's too ... that you don't understand the process of the events leading to one of the greatest errors of our time.
in this, we do agree and regardless of racism, the process counts.

btw, if the 14th had never been challenged by Brown & Co, forced segregation could still be with us, today.
^^^^^^^ this, is the part you refuse to accept.

IF not Brown, then WHO? ... do you really think passifist MLK would have?
after what i've read about him, i seriously doubt it.
now, given Brown never happened, do you really think MLK would have even been heard?

it WAS none of the Feds business and didn't become such until ... it was CITIZEN intitiated. again, it's the process that counts here.

This wasn't about the individual's rights.

really ??? then, who was Homer Plessy and why did HIS case change a Constitutional standard of equality for all?

quit moving the goalposts ... then and now are NOT equal.
and yes, i agree with Misoir's stance about then.

personally, you make me laugh ... STATES already do, have you been sleeping?
need examples?
i sure don't see any Constitutional/Fed involvement in disbanding Westboro, the black panthers, zionist groups, the kkk, muslim brotherhood, CAIR, NCAAP, stormfront and plenty of others. sooooo, where's this great POTUS power you think government has?

i am not discussing Misoir's opinion as some external proxy ... you want his opinion, address him. i find it funny that you want to use someone else's opinion to attack me, wtf is that about?

this article isn't about state decisions but the decision of ONE church ... quit grasping at imaginary straws.
and, since that church is located in a state, guess what?
IF the state found their practice excessive, harmful, or UnConstitutional, they could put a stop to it, surprised? see how long Westboro has been in action.

you can repeat this phrase as many times as you like, still doesn't change the facts ...

SCOTUS and the Federal government eventually intervened and overruled the ability of States to continue enforcing these laws.

Well if you're implying the majority, no, the people unfortunately stood silent.

IF you are implying the civil rights protests of the late 50s and into the 60s were a group of people who "stood silent", you'd be one sadly warped individual.

and, for the last time, i am not dissecting someone else's opinion.
con'd ...

reply to post by Southern Guardian

cont' d from previous post above ... if you have a problem with Misoir's stance, address him with it and leave me out of it as i've made myself perfectly clear.

Marriage is no business of the STATE or FED ... period.
It is a personal and religious choice, what don't you understand about that?

Some state governments of the time insisted this was the decision left to them, not the individual american.

which states and when?? (it does make a difference)
before or after Plessy? before or after Brown? before or after the Constitution? before or after the CW?
times were a changing ya know, you cannot group it all together like you want to, that just doesn't wash.

if the State is performing by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as it is scripted, then yes, the State retains said right because they are representative of the persons within it.
what we have these days isn't what i stated above and we all know it.

unless Misoir is a lawyer with a case pending, he has no legal position, just an opinion like ours. Stop making it out to be soooooo much more.

why would i want to talk about any churches? we're discussing policy.
man, them goalposts keep drifting and drifting ...

reply to post by antonia

Except the person I was replying to specifically mentioned nationalities. I don't care about you and didn't reply to you. There is no one "white" (as whites from different areas have different features) race so just mating white to white is still race mixing.

fyi ... on these boards, you are replying to the entire world of membership. it saddens me that you don't consider me part of the group

i didn't ask you to care about me or my opinion.
and yours, deserved a response.
i am not a racialist, or a racist or a purist of any kind, if you were following along, you would already be aware of such. thank you so much for your courtesy

reply to post by Honor93


Well if you are going to be snide and nasty don't expect me to care about you. You get what you give, don't think I missed the insult you laid at me earlier. Remember you told me to come back when my opinion mattered? Opps, looks like someone doesn't like being treated the way they treat others.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Honor93

 

Well if you are going to be snide and nasty don't expect me to care about you. You get what you give, don't think I missed the insult you laid at me earlier. Remember you told me to come back when my opinion mattered? Opps, looks like someone doesn't like being treated the way they treat others.

edit on 4-12-2011 by antonia because: forgot something

nice try but you aren't qualified to evaluate me or my intentions so don't bother trying.

i don't hold such ridiculous expectations, i've lived through segregation / desegregation, protests, racism, anti-almost everything, and a whole slew of life experiences that seem valuable to some willing to engage in conversation.
If you don't, there is nothing forcing you to respond.

Nationalism, racialism, ethnicity are ALL different. it is depressing to see so many willing to lump it all together and just cop-out to ... ah, you're a racist.

no, i asked you to present a valid opinion, of which you seem to still be lacking.
so, do you agree or disagree with the church members' decision and why?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I dont agree with the idea, however, most Baptist churches in the south have strict membership rules. To be a member of the church is like being on the board of directors. Planning activities, how to spend money, etc. If you read the article further it states they are allowed to attend worship services, they just cannot be MEMBERs of the church.

I grew up in southern Ohio. My parents owned a liquor store. They went to church every Sunday. However they were not permitted to be members of the church they attended because they owned a liquor store.

I think the title of this thread is misleading. They are allowed to attend. Just not join as full fledged members.

Originally posted by Honor93

no, i asked you to present a valid opinion, of which you seem to still be lacking.
so, do you agree or disagree with the church members' decision and why?

I snipped the rest of it because that wasn't what I was commenting on. If you proclaim my opinion to be invalid why should I care about yours? I was originally speaking of Misor's racialist argument which to me makes little sense as all he mentions are nationalities (and the one he mentioned does not exist anymore) therefore his argument makes little sense to me. Nationalities are artificial constructs and cannot be used to identify race as there are multiple races within most nations.

I don't give a damn what some idiotic, backwoods Kentuckians want to do. It's their right to be stupid and it only effects people dumb enough to walk in that church.

reply to post by Misoir


You have such a primitive way of looking at thing, and the sad thing is, there are many people out there like you. I am white british. I am not proud of being what. I see myself as a human being, and i see everyone as human beings. We ate all from tbe same place. We are all related because we are all part of this planet.

I wish people were proud of being a human being, instead of a colour because its just pointless. My wife is chinese , but i love her because of her as a person. Colour does not come into it. We know have a beatiful baby daughter who means the wofld to both of us.

She sits there and smules at us oblivious to all the hatred in the world, and that makes me so sad. She is a human being, not half chinese and half white.

Im so glad my mind works the way it does, and i feel sorry for people like you.

this will not end well. the fed gov threatened to remove tax exempt status from the mormon church out of salt lake city (the official big church) when it was discovered by the ACLU (etc) that black people could not be members of their priesthood. the president of their church changed their position and allowed blacks to become priests. if cornered on issues relative to club memberships such as church orgs, fraternal orders, boy scouts, girl scouts and etc, things can get mighty hairy.

reply to post by Jay-morris


yet you have an avatar depicting jesus being buddies with hitler?


not a bigot are ya?

Originally posted by Honor93

No, i don't agree with your point. segregation and racism are not interchangeable

You don't think segregating the races is racist? So then what is the purpose of racial segregation exactly, if it is not of a racist nature? You’re saying laws are just laws, these laws have a purpose behind them, they have values behind them. If racial segregation laws need not necessarily be racist in nature, then you’d have to rationalize it’s purpose outside of racism.

So what was it’s purpose??

many ppl harbor racism who have NEVER experienced segregation

I never stated that people were racist because of segregation. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

also, try not to forget those laws were implemented directly resulting from the actions of a black man

This makes racial segregation justified right? Because a black man was instrumental to racial segregation, this doesn't make it racist? What a strange argument.

i sympathize with all americans who choose to live as they see fit so long as it harms no other.

You sympathize? And yet you agree with Misoir, that States should have the right to tell those Americans how to live, based on race? No, I don’t think you sympathize at all.

are you really trying to imply ... since this church refuses to host/participate in the nuptials, that Stella & Ticha can never marry?

Where did I say they couldn't marry because of the Church? I stated there was a time when interracial couples couldn't marry, and I didn't at anytime blame it on this church. I stated that racism still exists within society itself and we still have a long way to go, this church is an example of this.

I know, you want to make as if I’m attacking the 'rights' of this church, when I made no mention against their rights in the OP.

Constitutionally, yes it did. do try to remember that the 14th Amendment was not part of the original draft.

Right, argument from you and Misoir was that neither the Federal government, nor SCOTUS had the authority to come in strip the ability of states to enforce racial segregation and interracial marriage. You insist that you were referring to at the time, and in no way do you support States enforcing these laws today. This doesn't make sense, because had the Feds and SCOTUS not intervened, racial segregation would have still very well existed to this day in certain states, and by your logic, you'd support their right to enforce these laws over their residents. So this idea that you don't support the states ability to enforce it today is nonsense.

it WAS none of the Feds business and didn't become such until ... it was CITIZEN intitiated. again,

I don’t see the difference. Whether the Feds intervened on behalf of a citizen or not, they intervened, and so did SCOTUS, but even at that, Misoir opposed Fed and SCOTUS intervention, even if it was citizen initiated as you claimed. You agreed with him.

i sure don't see any Constitutional/Fed involvement in disbanding Westboro, the black panthers, zionist groups, the kkk, muslim brotherhood, CAIR, NCAAP, stormfront and plenty of others.

Why would there be? These are private institutions, organisations. We’re arguing State governments mandating public racial segregation, State governments telling American citizens whom they could and could not marry based on race. The difference here is government. We're not debating the rights of private organisations such as Churches or racial organisations, nobody was.

IF the state found their practice excessive, harmful, or UnConstitutional, they could put a stop to it,

Many States had no intention of stopping it. States like Alabama and Lousiana had overwhelming majorities in supporting these measures by their state governments, they weren't going to change anytime soon.

During the years of slavery, it didn’t matter how many American citizens were being mistreated, and enslaved, it didn’t matter whether it was harmful, State governments still enforced these laws and stood on individual rights. It was only when Lincoln conveniently abolished slavery to add to Union forces that Southern States could not longer carry out these practices. They 'could' stop it isn't a justification at all for them being allowed to enforce these kinds of laws.

Originally posted by Honor93
which states and when?? (it does make a difference)
before or after Plessy? before or after Brown? before or after the Constitution? before or after the CW?
times were a changing ya know, you cannot group it all together like you want to, that just doesn't wash.

if the State is performing by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as it is scripted, then yes, the State retains said right

There is something called mob rule, it's this idea that the majority can always trump the rights of the minority or individuals. This isn't what this country was initially founded on, despite it's legal flaws. There are fundamental legal rights, privacy rights, individual rights, that should not be trumped by the majority.

You beg to differ, that's fine.