Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2024, 06:56:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment?
#1
Tearing up Bibles in public
 
#2
Flying a North Korean flag in front of a house
 
#3
Refusing to serve blacks at a restaurant
 
#4
Dancing naked for dollar bills
 
#5
Burning an American flag
 
#6
Burnign an effigy of Bush in public
 
#7
Hanging a banner in front of a house saying "BUSH SENT OUR SON HOME IN A BAG"
 
#8
Publicly eating pork and bacon using the Koran as a plate
 
#9
Handing out condoms outside of a Catholic church
 
#10
A band playing live swearing on stage
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 80

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment?  (Read 15796 times)
The Constitarian
Rookie
**
Posts: 229


« on: November 08, 2005, 12:04:15 PM »

they are all protected but refusing to serve blacks was later made illegal.  I don't think it should be illegal, if people are dumb enough to turn away money then let them follow their idiotic beliefs.
Logged
The Constitarian
Rookie
**
Posts: 229


« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2005, 05:18:38 PM »

they are all protected but refusing to serve blacks was later made illegal.  I don't think it should be illegal, if people are dumb enough to turn away money then let them follow their idiotic beliefs.

You're mistaking their situation - the restauranteurs were not 'turning away money' out of racism, they were following the dictates of the market.  The great majority of their potential customers were white, and these whites would refuse to eat in the company of blacks, so banning blacks was the more rational, self-interested, laissez-faire capitalist course of action.

That was then. I believe now times are different and the majority of whites aren't racist.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 14 queries.