Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Holy outofcontextalization batman! Were you paying attention to any part of the conversation? You understand that words have more than one meaning right? That in order to understand what they mean you have to read them within the context of the conversation? We were not for example talking about how to discriminate variables in a science experiment right?
|
Here is what you wrote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
The CRA and it most of it's follow ups were written to ensure that people have the necessaries in life (education, housing, employment, basic services etc) and not are not to be denied them for discriminatory reasons.
I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).
I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.
|
Your idea that legally prohibited discrimination is based on necessities of life and that legal discrimination in private affairs reflects something less than an essential right is simply wrong.
Discrimination is legally prohibited when it involves state supported activities or public establishments. The "right" that is protected by the Civil Rights Act(s) is generally the right to equal access, opportunities or treatment involving things that are supposedly equally available to all. If a person goes into a store to buy the most trivial item and is turned away on a prohibited basis (race, sex, color, etc.), that refusal constitutes legally prohibited discrimination because the person was not treated fairly and equally with others, and not due to the nature of the item the person wanted to buy.