Coin club kicks out pagan dealer from flea market

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:24:52 -0400, linxlvr
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:52:52 -0500, Ed.Stoebenau wrote:

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:19:08 -0400, linxlvr
wrote:


Get real. Any gathering should have the right to say who they let in and
why.

No, they shouldn't (and most likely don't). Look at the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, especially with regards to public
accommodations, which such shows and having tables at would seem
to be. No discrimination based on religion and all that.

And as one's religion (to a first approximation, at least) or
lack thereof doesn't affect how good or bad of a coin dealer one
is, it should be apparently that such discrimination has no
rational basis and is just a reflection of prejudice. If this
results in losing a bigot or two as customers, that doesn't sound
too bad.

Even a group of pagans should have the right to not allow a bunch of
Christians in, or whatever group. Freedom is allowing each group to be a
group. No one is doing anything to anyone. Let all the pagans have a group
meeting and throw out anyone with a cross. I'll care the exact same amount.

But this isn't a group of pagans or a groups of Christians but
rather a group of dealers. Nothing having to do with religion.

Obviously you and I disagree on this. But I still stand w/ my views. I
think the modern view of freedom means "anything-anywhere-anytime" is
wrong.

I also don't think that's a good definition of "freedom," but I
also don't see how that can be considered the modern view,
either. That's more a strawman view proposed by certain far
right wing elements to smear their opponents with, and is not
worthy in debate. In any case, freedom of religion and assembly
are certainly not mere so-called "anything-anywhere-anytime"
freedoms.


If the people who put a meeting together do not care for the material a
certain person brings, they should be able to have that material not there.

Then they should set up their flea markets so that only members
of their club can set up at them, and set up conditions for
membership so that only certain privileged classes can join up,
if they want to discriminate at their shows. However, all
evidence we have in this thread suggests that they did not do so.

PS-Quote anything you want legally. I don't care. I am voicing my opinion,
not voicing legal standings or saying what some government's opinion is.

I am convinced many of the laws passed in that era were wrong, so
reminding me of them won't change my opinion.

You should spend your efforts convincing me of this;

Uhh, because discrimination is wrong, and holding individuals
down for belonging to non-privigled classes, real or perceived,
treats some as lesser than human? But hey, I'm sure that the
theonomy that certain people in this country want to bring about
would have the effect of having you getting stoned to death as
much as me, so I'm sure we can find some prudential arguments in
favor of anti-discrimination laws in addition to ethical ones.

That if there is a gathering of people where the majority don't like
something, they have to deal with it and they don't have the freedom to
have it removed, because the one person wants to have this thing and the
freedom of that single person out weighs the freedoms of the group. Again,
don't bother quoting law,

Well, as should be obvious, it is dependent upon what this
"thing" we are talking about is, is it not? I think this was
answered above.

I am not convinced all laws or that this
government is always right.

You've obviously missed all the threads about the collectibility
of contemporary counterfeits if you think I would quote a law
favorably if I didn't think it was independently a good idea.

This will also be my final post on this thread, which has quickly
gone and stayed off-topic, unless it returns so, which is
unlikely.


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143

"Ed. Stoebenau" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:24:52 -0400, linxlvr
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:52:52 -0500, Ed.Stoebenau wrote:

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:19:08 -0400, linxlvr
wrote:


Get real. Any gathering should have the right to say who they let in
and
why.

No, they shouldn't (and most likely don't). Look at the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, especially with regards to public
accommodations, which such shows and having tables at would seem
to be. No discrimination based on religion and all that.

And as one's religion (to a first approximation, at least) or
lack thereof doesn't affect how good or bad of a coin dealer one
is, it should be apparently that such discrimination has no
rational basis and is just a reflection of prejudice. If this
results in losing a bigot or two as customers, that doesn't sound
too bad.

Even a group of pagans should have the right to not allow a bunch of
Christians in, or whatever group. Freedom is allowing each group to be
a
group. No one is doing anything to anyone. Let all the pagans have a
group
meeting and throw out anyone with a cross. I'll care the exact same
amount.

But this isn't a group of pagans or a groups of Christians but
rather a group of dealers. Nothing having to do with religion.

Obviously you and I disagree on this. But I still stand w/ my views. I
think the modern view of freedom means "anything-anywhere-anytime" is
wrong.

I also don't think that's a good definition of "freedom," but I
also don't see how that can be considered the modern view,
either. That's more a strawman view proposed by certain far
right wing elements to smear their opponents with, and is not
worthy in debate. In any case, freedom of religion and assembly
are certainly not mere so-called "anything-anywhere-anytime"
freedoms.


If the people who put a meeting together do not care for the material a
certain person brings, they should be able to have that material not
there.

Then they should set up their flea markets so that only members
of their club can set up at them, and set up conditions for
membership so that only certain privileged classes can join up,
if they want to discriminate at their shows. However, all
evidence we have in this thread suggests that they did not do so.

Well, it seems that that is exactly what they did.


PS-Quote anything you want legally. I don't care. I am voicing my
opinion,
not voicing legal standings or saying what some government's opinion is.

I am convinced many of the laws passed in that era were wrong, so
reminding me of them won't change my opinion.

You should spend your efforts convincing me of this;

Uhh, because discrimination is wrong, and holding individuals
down for belonging to non-privigled classes, real or perceived,
treats some as lesser than human? But hey, I'm sure that the
theonomy that certain people in this country want to bring about
would have the effect of having you getting stoned to death as
much as me, so I'm sure we can find some prudential arguments in
favor of anti-discrimination laws in addition to ethical ones.

But no one is holding them down. They are free to associate with the people
that are like minded if the others wish to do so. They have the freedom of
assembly as does everyone else. This is not a case of discrimation, as this
is a private club who can decide who gets to show their wares, its a case of
choice of association, and, like the Boy Scouts, they have the right to
associate/admit/choose/exclude whomever they wish.


That if there is a gathering of people where the majority don't like
something, they have to deal with it and they don't have the freedom to
have it removed, because the one person wants to have this thing and the
freedom of that single person out weighs the freedoms of the group.
Again,
don't bother quoting law,

Well, as should be obvious, it is dependent upon what this
"thing" we are talking about is, is it not? I think this was
answered above.

I am not convinced all laws or that this
government is always right.

You've obviously missed all the threads about the collectibility
of contemporary counterfeits if you think I would quote a law
favorably if I didn't think it was independently a good idea.

This will also be my final post on this thread, which has quickly
gone and stayed off-topic, unless it returns so, which is
unlikely.


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143