Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment

>> You aren't being oppressed the other party doesn't want to interact
>> with you, unless that party is government providing base services to 
>all
>> (e.g. police/courts/border protection).
>
>Actually, you can be.

How?

>> You *are* being oppressed if mutually consensual behavior is 
>interfered
>> with by
>> others including the State.
>
>> You *are* being oppressed if you are coerced into a relationship you 
>don't
>> want.
>
>You are not being coerced into anything.  If you don't want to serve
>food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant.  It's your choice.

Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to deny
*anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.  However, if you
were banned from using the government postal service for being Jewish,
then yes, you are being oppressed.

>By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own
>backyard.  Are you being oppressed?

Depends.  Does it affect your neighbors?  If so, then no.  If not, then
yes.

>> An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other 
>arrangement
>> between adults -mutually consensual.
>
>In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual.  It the real world, it 
>is 
>seldom mutual.

Tough shit.

If you don't like your job, no one's forcing you to stay.  Just leave it
and get another one.

lord_buttmonkey@juno.com (Matthew L Bennett) writes:
>
> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to deny
> *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.

Tell that to Denney's restaurants. (No, not in the United Fascist
States of Amerika you can't.)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Thu, 25 Dec 97 01:02:28 EST dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
writes:
>lord_buttmonkey@juno.com (Matthew L Bennett) writes:
>>
>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to 
>deny
>> *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.
>
>Tell that to Denney's restaurants. (No, not in the United Fascist
>States of Amerika you can't.)

Hmmm...

Apologies.  In *theory* you have those rights, on *paper*, you have those
rights, but in *practice*, you're correct, the Government has power that
it gleefully abuses, forcing others to comply w/ political correctness.

I'd like some more info on this Denny's thing.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 8:26 PM -0800 1/10/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
>>>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
>>>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to
>>>> deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.
>
>I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;
>you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
>Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
>(Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
>could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
>it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
>but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
>is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
>if they couldn't be interfering in business.)

Firstly, something being long-established doesn't make it right.
SO, let's look at it this way, regarding the freedom of association.

You have the freedom to associate with whom you choose, don't you
think?  It's not in the constitution, but you would throw a fit if
Uncle Sam told you that it was illegal for you to go play baseball
with little Billy if little Billy was black and you were white.

AND, in my not so humble opinion, If you have the freedom to play
with little Billy, then you have the freedom to tell little Billy
to go fuck himself because you refuse to play with "niggers."

Sam Adams (as it may or may not have been mentioned on this list)
himself had a problem with our constitution -- he didn't think that
it was right for the people to ratify the bill of rights, thereby
protecting certain rights under the constitution.  Why?  Simple.

He was of the mind that setting our rights, such as the right to
free speech, in concrete meant that anything NOT set in concrete
wasn't a right -- he felt that by ratifying the bill of rights,
rather than using logic as I did above, we were actually LIMITING
our rights as freely roaming human beings.

>>>Tell that to Denney's restaurants. (No, not in the United Fascist
>>>States of Amerika you can't.)
>
>>Apologies.  In *theory* you have those rights, on *paper*, you have those
>>rights, but in *practice*, you're correct, the Government has power that
>>it gleefully abuses, forcing others to comply w/ political correctness.
>>
>>I'd like some more info on this Denny's thing.
>
>A Denny's restaurant in Maryland had two groups of customers
>show up one day, one group black, one group white, both about 6-8 people,
>both arriving at the same time, both groups out-of-uniform cops.
>The white people got served promptly, the blacks got served
>extremely late and rudely.  And sued, and won.

Sadly, America has become less of a home to the free and the brave,
and more of a home to the pissed and the laywers.  I remember an
experience where I was lounging in a booth at a Perkins with a few
friends of mine.  Two of them were sitting on one side (they were
dating at the time), and I was stretched across the cushion on the
other side.

The manager came up to me and told me to sit up straight, or he
would ask me to leave.  I lit a cigarette and told him to go fuck
himself.  He asked me to leave.  I did so, my friends in tow, and
we refused to pay the $40 bill on our way out.

America should be about not taking any shit from anybody -- not
because you can sue, but because you have enough attitude to realize
when the other guy's being an idiot, and because you have enough
balls to tell him so.

Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste,
The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff@speakeasy.org>***
- ---
As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and
confirm the signature attached to this message.  Either
that, or head for pgp.ai.mit.edu on the WWW and search
for my e-mail address.
- ---
Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory
efforts.  Solicitations are NOT welcome here!
- ---
        ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK----
Version: 160 (IQ)
Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses.

Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?"
- ---
Citizen: "Public enemy?"
          [long pause]
         "Probably somebody in office."
        -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK-----


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNLqKEgBMw4+NR29ZAQHQkQgAzyup+DhoMDPRPuXPS36o7qjRBAbfcxPG
Rwyme05AjYo4v/VUIAcP0fCrw2PTWD3X3H7xRDRqq5YP/U3ZCZa/S63uMtdoe7bf
to2zfCVFcD0ym6765XCnV4iYsp7+VlTFSGNzCw5ur0S25wwztg774XlM1bjpiw5N
pF9g67DSOMRfJqWyeMrcw6QUcon6LJR0+HU6VmNdvisxBQd5sdh7WoKw+VCklCjE
KFRvfxgmFVgoM8sBxUKyI6U0X3HqWZS8PwRQZFr5B6YT3duFn6AEdr9EInbZL8/p
fCaQTt3jb95DBnHEipYEsq0bSpI3+f603/qoSGPrgvjoRuOXwq491A==
=dML4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 02:45 PM 12/26/97 CST, Matthew L Bennett wrote:
>
>On Thu, 25 Dec 97 01:02:28 EST dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
>writes:
>>lord_buttmonkey@juno.com (Matthew L Bennett) writes:
>>>
>>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
>>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to 
>>deny
>>> *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.
>>
>>Tell that to Denney's restaurants. (No, not in the United Fascist
>>States of Amerika you can't.)
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Apologies.  In *theory* you have those rights, on *paper*, you have those
>rights, but in *practice*, you're correct, the Government has power that
>it gleefully abuses, forcing others to comply w/ political correctness.

Well no, on paper you do have those rights, and you don't have those
rights.  Laws have been written so that you do not have those rights.
Are those laws consitutional?  No.  Does the fascist regime, or the
average apathetic American care?  No.

The Sheriff wrote:
> 
> At 8:26 PM -0800 1/10/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
> >>>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
> >>>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to
> >>>> deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.
> >
> >I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;
> >you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
> >Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
> >(Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
> >could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
> >it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
> >but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
> >is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
> >if they couldn't be interfering in business.)
> 
> Firstly, something being long-established doesn't make it right.
> SO, let's look at it this way, regarding the freedom of association.

These arguments are all smoke and mirrors unless we figure out
where
authority lies (? ;-)

As far as I'm concerned freedom of association is implied by
freedom
of assembly.  To assemble in this context obviously means to
associate.
If it doesn't, then what the hell is it?  To come together in
order to
work things out?  Is that association?  In the context of
assembling
for commerce, commerce is just assembling and agreeing on the
terms
of free association.

The authority of a Supreme Court was challenged by Thomas
Jefferson, who
speculated that if such a court were the ultimate arbiter of
justice, then
a tyranny of the judiciary would follow.

So who ultimately judges?  I should think having a federal body 
judge the constitutional limitations of the federal government
is an
obvious conflict of interest.  In any case, anyone willing to
read
the constitution and do just a little bit of homework will find
out
that the constitution is a *limitation* of the powers of the
federal
government, not a broad grant.  This design of the Constitution
was
seriously undermined when Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in
order
to judge that Social (in)Security was constitutional.  In their
decision
they decided that the welfare clause was a broad grant of power
to
federal government.  This flies in the face of more than 100
years
of judicial readings of the constitution, not to mention logic.
If the federal government was given a broad grant of powers in
the Constitution, why did it outline only specific powers?
(In fact, exactly this argument was put forth when Madison(?)
was questioned on the intent of the welfare clause  -- didn't
the
Supreme Court justices, with their intellectual clout bother to
research the writing of the designers of said document?)

[little know fact: Earl Warren, noted Supreme Court "Justice"
was
the designer of the Japanese-American Prison camps in the US
during
WWII]

If the US Constitution is a contract with the people on the
scope and
nature of their government, then I at least want an outside
arbiter
of that contract.  All references to Spooner's "The Constitution
of No
Authority" aside, if it is not a contract then were living on
the other
side of the looking glass, Alice. 

Before someone starts spouting off on "our living
constitution"(TM) someone
please tell me why they didn't strike out the conflicting parts
of
the constitution when they "grew" it?  Something like
"amendments
number one, two, five, nine and ten should be amended to read
"unless we say otherwise".  Alterations of public law almost
always specify the
previous laws that are struck down.  In fact, if memory serves,
the repeal of prohibition specifically alters the amendment that
created it.

(It is left as an excercise to the reader to figure out why
prohibition
needed an amendment to the constitution while prohibition of
other
mind altering substances did not ;-)

Have a day.

Jim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>These arguments are all smoke and mirrors unless we figure
>out where authority lies (? ;-)

With the people of this country.  There that was simple. :)

>As far as I'm concerned freedom of association is implied by
>freedom of assembly.  To assemble in this context obviously
>means to associate. If it doesn't, then what the hell is it?
>To come together in order to work things out?  Is that
>association?  In the context of assembling for commerce,
>commerce is just assembling and agreeing on the terms of
>free association.

Okay, my point was simply that an assumed right shouldn't
HAVE to be implied under the existing constitution.  Either
we have to find a way to list all our freedoms at once and
then guarantee them definitively, or we have to not guarantee
them on paper, so as to not LIMIT them TO paper.

I'm assuming that the bill of rights was written in this
spirit -- our forefathers listed and guaranteed all of our
rights that had been previously contested by King George.
I can only assume that they had no idea the kind of civil
war they would start over rights that they didn't see as
being threatened but must (in today's world) be guaranteed
by law in order to be valid.

I mean, hell how to you spell out the right to privacy in
leagalese, in one paragraph?  You can't, not in today's
society.  Everybody's definition has a different spin, and
all of the ones based on common sense are correct.

>The authority of a Supreme Court was challenged by Thomas
>Jefferson, who speculated that if such a court were the
>ultimate arbiter of justice, then a tyranny of the judiciary
>would follow.

Nine judges, appointed for life, who therefore never run
for election (even though they are selected and confirmed
by elected officials).  Whomever chooses them influences the
political philosophy driving that court for years and years
after their term of office has expired.  I entirely agree with
Thomas Jefferson.  Interestingly enough, the constitution
doesn't say a damn thing about "judicial review."  It was
a power that the supreme court granted unto itself, something
that the court itself would challange if either of the other
two branches of government tried that...

Personally, I think the voters should decide exactly what
the supreme court can do (since it's rather vaguely defined
in the constitution), and then give themselves to vote on
who will be put in those nine chairs.

>So who ultimately judges?  I should think having a federal
>body judge the constitutional limitations of the federal
>government is an obvious conflict of interest.

I think the idea behind it all was to say that, in putting
nine judges in the highest court and giving them lifetime
terms, they then have the ability to make decisions without
facing the wrath of the other two brances.  You're correct,
however.  A man who represents himself in a court of law
has a fool for a client, and this holds true for the Fed.

>In any case,
>anyone willing to read the constitution and do just a little
>bit of homework will find out that the constitution is a
>*limitation* of the powers of the federal government, not a
>broad grant.

Thank you, thank you! :)

>[little know fact: Earl Warren, noted Supreme Court
>"Justice" was the designer of the Japanese-American Prison
>camps in the US during WWII]

I didn't know that.

>Before someone starts spouting off on "our living
>constitution"(TM) someone please tell me why they didn't
>strike out the conflicting parts of the constitution when
>they "grew" it?  Something like "amendments number one, two,
>five, nine and ten should be amended to read "unless we say
>otherwise".  Alterations of public law almost always specify
>the previous laws that are struck down.  In fact, if memory
>serves, the repeal of prohibition specifically alters the
>amendment that created it.

Actually, I think the "unless we say so" clause is allready
in there, in most if not all ammendments (unless I'm
mistaken).  It reads something to the effect of Congress
having the athority to draft any and all laws that assist in
the upholding of whatever part of the constitution that the
clause is included in.  I think it's called the "elastic
clause," if memory serves me correctly (where's my copy of
the constitution that has all the $2 bills with the signing
of the declaration of independance on the back stuffed into
the middle?!).

>(It is left as an excercise to the reader to figure out why
>prohibition needed an amendment to the constitution while
>prohibition of other mind altering substances did not ;-)

I think what happened was that the prohibition ammendent was
drafted in the "do MORE good!" days following the United State's
successes in the first world war.  A time of "good feelings"
was in effect, and since the evil Germans had been stamped out,
folks figured that stamping out other evils was also a good thing.

How ironic that the repealing ammendment immediately followed
the woman's sufferage ammendment.  It's like the country woke
up from a bad hangover...

>Have a day.

Allways do. :)

Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste,
The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff@speakeasy.org>***
- ---
As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and
confirm the signature attached to this message.  Either
that, or head for pgp.ai.mit.edu on the WWW and search
for my e-mail address.
- ---
Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory
efforts.  Solicitations are NOT welcome here!
- ---
        ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK----
Version: 160 (IQ)
Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses.

Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?"
- ---
Citizen: "Public enemy?"
          [long pause]
         "Probably somebody in office."
        -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK-----


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNLyDBQBMw4+NR29ZAQHRuAf/VijkwXb/H2uXRuObeNsAdpgysKmMvEWr
1ufctl9e+BtbeByLLLmH22qudsl76xrVA5EHq8qHOHixZQTDayb7lfeTBHBwnrkI
Z79ZT5EUyjIBM6V6Iad2Qtit7ePkeGG52UqKYU1cbruEQkyM4FZc2js2kbG/uky6
53+ez/wvdBYwIbB8PnTRkrE8ZDC+21hHFH+5Aw4wSRP0cyHfslu8uWg4DM1O2car
VQqxvy1XYEKv3uXoF/l8v/iw3kAwXpaJzhViEnOAuli21nVip8xa+3zG+sMyY4Gg
us8wvVeqqNANNu8WG9WAUqV0OmGaWObNC6QGnVOqBGoKulmoDFFdjw==
=Fsmr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
>>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to 
>>> deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.

I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;
you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
(Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
if they couldn't be interfering in business.)

>>Tell that to Denney's restaurants. (No, not in the United Fascist
>>States of Amerika you can't.)

>Apologies.  In *theory* you have those rights, on *paper*, you have those
>rights, but in *practice*, you're correct, the Government has power that
>it gleefully abuses, forcing others to comply w/ political correctness.
>
>I'd like some more info on this Denny's thing.

A Denny's restaurant in Maryland had two groups of customers
show up one day, one group black, one group white, both about 6-8 people,
both arriving at the same time, both groups out-of-uniform cops.
The white people got served promptly, the blacks got served
extremely late and rudely.  And sued, and won.

(I was mainly surprised that the white cops got served fast;
my experience in Denny's has almost always been slow bad service,
except for one restaurant in Pennsylvania that hasn't learned
how to act like a real Denny's :-)
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> writes:

> I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;
> you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
> Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
> (Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
> could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
> it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
> but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
> is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
> if they couldn't be interfering in business.)

When the southern states passes laws in late 19th/early 20th century
mandating separate accommodations for blacks (the infamous back of the
bus), the businesses running the buses, streetcars, et al were extremely
opposed to this segregation, and were extremely happy to get rid of it
with the feds' help in 1960s. (I can dig up some citations if pressed.)

It's a pity there was no good constitutional challenge at the time -
given the climate, the SC would have probably said that a state can't
order a private business to discriminate or not to discriminate.

> A Denny's restaurant in Maryland had two groups of customers
> show up one day, one group black, one group white, both about 6-8 people,
> both arriving at the same time, both groups out-of-uniform cops.
> The white people got served promptly, the blacks got served
> extremely late and rudely.  And sued, and won.

My recollection was that the folks accusing Denney's of "discrimination"
never won in court and shut up after Denney's made a large "donation" to
Jesse jackson's organization. I could be wrong. Still a "victory" in
court doesn't mean that the incident like the one you described is
statistically significant.

> (I was mainly surprised that the white cops got served fast;
> my experience in Denny's has almost always been slow bad service,
> except for one restaurant in Pennsylvania that hasn't learned
> how to act like a real Denny's :-)

At about that time I was doing a project in Kentucky, and went to
Denny's with a very black friend, and had decent food and service. So?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

>>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
>>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to 
>>> deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.

I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;
you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
(Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
if they couldn't be interfering in business.)

>>Tell that to Denney's restaurants. (No, not in the United Fascist
>>States of Amerika you can't.)

>Apologies.  In *theory* you have those rights, on *paper*, you have those
>rights, but in *practice*, you're correct, the Government has power that
>it gleefully abuses, forcing others to comply w/ political correctness.
>
>I'd like some more info on this Denny's thing.

A Denny's restaurant in Maryland had two groups of customers
show up one day, one group black, one group white, both about 6-8 people,
both arriving at the same time, both groups out-of-uniform cops.
The white people got served promptly, the blacks got served
extremely late and rudely.  And sued, and won.

(I was mainly surprised that the white cops got served fast;
my experience in Denny's has almost always been slow bad service,
except for one restaurant in Pennsylvania that hasn't learned
how to act like a real Denny's :-)

Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> writes:
>
> >>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
> >>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to
> >>> deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.
>
> I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;

Freedoms not explicitly enumerated there aren't protected? Come on.

> you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
> Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
> (Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
> could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
> it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
> but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
> is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
> if they couldn't be interfering in business.)

It was wrong for the gubmint (state) to require segregation just as it
is wrong for it to prohibit racial discrimination.

When martin luther king was boycotting buses et al, he had much support
from the private bus companies, who were required by the states to
segregate, but didn't want to.

"I have a dream.  I want my birthday to be a holiday." -MLK

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Of course you _have_ that right; I was writing in response to
the assertion that the _Constitution_ says you have it,
when in fact it not only says no such thing, but the
Supremes have occasionally ruled substantially differently.
I agree with Jim Choate that the 9th and 10th leave room for
all sorts of rights that nobody in their right mind
would disagree with but which the government keeps trying
to take away anyway....  but that's no excuse for claiming that
things are explicitly stated there when they're not.

At 04:40 PM 1/11/98 -0400, The Sheriff wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>At 8:26 PM -0800 1/10/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
>>>>> Umm, no, freedom doesn't work like that.  If you open a *private*
>>>>> establishment, you have the right, according to the constitution, to
>>>>> deny *anyone* the right to enter or eat in your restraunt.
>>
>>I don't see freedom of association listed anywhere there;
>>you might construe it as a "taking" or something, but it'd be a stretch.
>>Also, there was a really appalling court case in the 1890s
>>(Plessey vs. Ferguson), in which the Supremes ruled that states
>>could require segregation with separate but equal accommodations;
>>it was somewhat overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954,
>>but the idea that the government can tell you how to run your business
>>is long established (after all, we'd need much smaller governments
>>if they couldn't be interfering in business.)
>
>Firstly, something being long-established doesn't make it right.
>SO, let's look at it this way, regarding the freedom of association.
>
>You have the freedom to associate with whom you choose, don't you
>think?  It's not in the constitution, but you would throw a fit if
>Uncle Sam told you that it was illegal for you to go play baseball
>with little Billy if little Billy was black and you were white.
>
>AND, in my not so humble opinion, If you have the freedom to play
>with little Billy, then you have the freedom to tell little Billy
>to go fuck himself because you refuse to play with "niggers."

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639