[AP] Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Erika Kirk is a daily mass going Catholic so pretty sure you're wrong on that.

 

Meanwhile the GOP is going full big government in response to changing times.

 

That is very surprising considering Christian Nationalism is a very Protestant movement.

Both Catholicism and Protestantism can’t be right.

 

Perhaps you don't properly understand Charlie Kirk.

 

I don’t know about his personal life or his wife, but I know he wasn’t pushing a message of Christ’s love.

I also know why theocracies are generally pretty terrible.

 

Correct.

You can be non-religious and still be a terrible person.

 

Perhaps you don't properly understand Kirks views. You just got caught attributing views to him that are demonstrably false.

 

Well views of his wife’s religion…. But Catholics can also be jerks like Protestants. That doesn’t dismiss the notion that theocracies / Christian Nationalism is a bad thing.

Again, can both Catholics and Protestants be correct?

Kirk was a major proponent of “free speech”….Do you think that was real or Kirk would be happy that his death is being used to silent dissent against his particular views?

 

case in point, Donald J Trump

 

It is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in certain circumstances (you can discriminate legally based upon race if you are deciding who to let into your house, for example). I am saying that preventing private parties from discriminating based on whatever they want to discriminate on is illegal under the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.

It doesn't matter if the idea is good or not, only whether it is Constitutionally sound. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not.

While I understand that you are being sarcastic, those are in fact all true statements.

I am sometimes a very serious person. I am at other times a very jocular person. I contain multitude. There is nothing unserious about the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was blatantly unconstitutional.

Constitutional scholars and libertarians have complained about them constantly; you just weren't paying attention. The fact that there is some nebulous connection to some taxpayer expense (that is likely far more than outweighed by the taxes collected from the business) doesn't give the government carte blanche to impose whatever restrictions it likes (or at least it shouldn't and in fact didn't prior to 1942 and the Wickard v. Filburn decision).

Expediency is pretty much never a good basis upon which to make decisions that last through generations.

It isn't totally fine, it is blatantly unconstitutional. See above why doing bad things because you think it is "necessary" is bad.

It is one of the most important pieces of legislation, but in a terrible way. The farm regulations that led to the Wickard v. Filburn decision were probably more harmful in the long run, but this was a close second. The government (and especially the federal government) should not be in the business of regulating the private actions of private actors. Prevent people from directly harming others. That is an unequivocal good. Punish someone if the cut someone's arm off. To punish someone because they choose what crops to grow and how much or because they chose to serve some customers but not others is far beyond the legitimate scope of government.

The most perfect for libertarian world is the most perfect for human world, because libertarianism is the best state for humans.

In a world with racism, sexism, and classism, there is no need for the 1964 CRA.

Not really, we just understand that freedom doesn't necessarily cater to everyone's whim at every juncture. It is just better than the alternatives. If some people are not allowed to patronize a business, but the government doesn't get involved in who you do business with, that is better than forcing people to do business with those who they don't want to do business with.

I think it would be fantastic, and also governed according to fair principles.

Every store and place of commerce should certainly be allowed to have armed security at the front door, and they should be allowed to shoot thieves. If they were, there would be a lot fewer thieves.

 

Not true, not until Trumpism did people start begging for the freedom to not serve blacks again. If you want to run a business the excludes someone because of the color of their skin, then you do not believe in the concept of a civil society. Why have any laws at all that stop people for hurting one another? Why not just allow murder? Sound ridiculous to you - but what you are arguing for is that some humans can be elevated above others. Some are superior than others based on things like skin color.

If that's the America you fight for, we are enemies.

 

lmao

 

@Nook unbelievable