It does not matter what I believe in. . . It won't harm my ability to practice law, and to argue either way under the law (lawyers have to be prepared to do this). Plenty of lawyers, actually, I'd say just about all of them, keep their personal beliefs separate from their law practice. WHen I go to my office and put my legal hat on, I take the side of my client, and 100% defend, and uphold his/her interests. When I'm at home, I am entitled to my personal views, irrespective of my law practice.
Government infrastructure is, and isn't "free" for everybody - civilians, businesses, etc. Taxes from both the business, and individual's personal income goes towards constructing them. It's not the other way around. . .
So why is there congressional groups that only focus on somebody's "interest" if they are black? And why can't white people, asian, people, etc. join? Are you saying it's not possible for a white person, or another race to serve the special interests of black people? What about the white guy who serves a majority black district who wanted to join to help his district, but was denied? Are there not plenty of men in women's special intersts groups? Are there not plenty of straight people in gay special interest groups?
Government infrastructure should be free for businesses but businesses should not be subject to the rules?
The black congressional congress exists for a particular reason. There are women's groups that exist for particular reasons as well. I'd suggest that if you want to be a lawyer you have some growing up to do if you think that political groups who exist to represent special interests should be forced by law to not be made up of members of the special interest, but that businesses should be allowed to openly discriminate based on race.
But why can't white people join the black congressional caucus? Didn't you just say it was wrong for an association to say who can, and can't come in based on skin color? A governmental organization, nonetheless. Congressmen who are paid salaries by taxpayers directly. They discriminate based on race - are oyu ok with that?
That's notthe same as government directly subsiizing you with tax money. GOvt. infrastructure should obviously be free for anybody to use. . But just like your home is your private place where you can say who can and can't come in, so should your business. . .
Well, there's already associations that say "no white people," "no asian people," etc. . It's called the black congressional caucus. And they are government elected officials. But yes, I think a person has every right to say who can come into their PRIVATE business, as much as they do their very own homes. Not saying I agree with somebody saying "no whites, no blacks, etc." But that's their right if it's their business, free from governemnt subsidies.
So you think that if someone starts their own business they should be able to say "No ****s, no women, no Irish, no blacks"? You think that they should be able to say "no whites"? You think they should be allowed to refuse service to people because they are from Eastern Europe?
Also, Piglet, let me ask you this. . If somebody has their own private business they started with their own money, and receive no government subsidies, don't you think they would have the right to say who works there? NO, do not mistake this for me agreeing that it would be right to discriminate based on **** like race, sex, or religion. But if you believe in true freedom, then you'd ahve to concede this point. . . Right? And please do not try to say "well true freedom would also mean being able to kill somebody if you felt like it." GOvenrment employment, and employers who receive government funding is a different story, though.