The Double Standard Of Tolerance

[local 12 proud]

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton120706PF.html

 

[Garfield1966]

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton120706PF.html

According to this:
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/istanbul.htm

Istanbul was inhabited as early as 3,000 BC, taken over by the Greeks, who lost it to the Romans, Who lost it to the Barbarians (I think they are the Byzantines who are the Hagia Sophia.

Not sure where the christians came into this. Maybe I missed something. My history of the area is a bit weak but it seems that your post is lacking yet again. Perhaps someone more familiar with the area can point out if I missed something.



I did a little more research and it appears the Byzantine empire was influenced by christianity quite a bit which is where the Hagia Sophia came from. The thing is they considered them selves Romas and spoke Greek. That does seem to put a bit of a twist on who own who what.

 

[Leto2]

I agree with the general point of the essay: That there is a double standard between the West and Muslims.

Why are the continuing persecution of Christians today, despicable anti-Semitic slanders, and the desecration of temples and churches in Muslim lands shrugged away in the West, while trivial cartoons and mere statements of historical fact are met with hysteria, violence, and threats? Why are churches disappearing throughout the lands of Christianity’s birth and growth, while huge mosques are going up in London and Milan? Why are Christians and Jews forbidden entry into Saudi Arabia, while Muslims in Europe demand special privileges and recognition of their faith?

Someone draws a cartoon about Muhammed and there is a huge uproar, while Iran's leader says that Jerusalem needs to be destroyed and it hardly makes the news.
Muslims demand rights, tolerance, etc., while if a Muslim living in Iran converts to Christianity their life is in jeopardy.

I agree that we need more leaders that need to stand up to the Muslims and quit being so PC.

 

[delldude]

Excellent post and link Local 12.

An all too true accounting of todays world and the PC movement of appeasement.Has no one seen through the smoke and mirrors of these Muslim fanatics and their past actions that here and now are a carbon copy of historically correct past deeds?

Like Local 12 says:

Islam:believe it or else 😉

Maybe I missed something. My history of the area is a bit weak but it seems that your post is lacking yet again. Perhaps someone more familiar with the area can point out if I missed something.

Well well....finally we come to agreement

 

[local 12 proud]

Yet another glaring example of ISLAM's one way street of tolerance!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/1...r_discrimi.html

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Yet another glaring example of ISLAM's one way street of tolerance!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/1...r_discrimi.html

I think the airlines ought to stand tough and just offer their money back if there is any issue.

After all it's a contract of carriage that can be denied. No constitutional issues.

This falls under tyranny of the minority.

 

[local 12 proud]

I think the airlines ought to stand tough and just offer their money back if there is any issue.

After all it's a contract of carriage that can be denied. No constitutional issues.

This falls under tyranny of the minority.

Exactly, and that is a very good point. Restaurants and bars are a good example of places who reserve the right to refuse service to certain patrons.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Exactly, and that is a very good point. Restaurants and bars are a good example of places who reserve the right to refuse service to certain patrons.

I do not think that the scenario regarding the Imams was an "over-reaction." But to your point... Restaurants and bars do have the option to refuse service to certain patrons, IF they are not considered by the federal government as a "place of public accommodation." Although the definition of "public accommodation" is liberally construed, many restaurants and bars do not fit into that category.

Likewise, the courts have determined that airlines, generally, are not considered places of public accommodation.

However, as noted earlier. Purchasing a ticket with an airline is a "contract of carriage." Thus, airlines fall within the authority of the civil rights act. "All persons shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens."

Thus, unlike restaurants, airlines cannot refuse service to certain patrons just because they have certain attributes. This, however, does not prevent the airline from removing certain patrons because of certain activities, such as severe disruptive behavior.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

However, as noted earlier. Purchasing a ticket with an airline is a "contract of carriage." Thus, airlines fall within the authority of the civil rights act. "All persons shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens."

Thus, unlike restaurants, airlines cannot refuse service to certain patrons just because they have certain attributes. This, however, does not prevent the airline from removing certain patrons because of certain activities, such as severe disruptive behavior.

I don't think the "COC" applies until you are actually on the plane enroute. So refusal to carry one regardless of who they are is the airline's choice. There is no "constitutional" right to fly.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I don't think the "COC" applies until you are actually on the plane enroute. So refusal to carry one regardless of who they are is the airline's choice. There is no "constitutional" right to fly.

Considering that most "COC's" have provisions regarding check-in deadlines, delayed flights, and other information not pertaining to "in-flight" info, I think you are wrong. You enter into the contract once you purchase the ticket... that is why, until electronic tickets, you always found the contract on the back of your ticket.

If you do not believe me, believe the "Aviation Accident Law Treatise": " A ticket constitutes a contract of carriage...."

Furthermore, last year an Iranian sued an airline for denying his civil rights because they did not allow him on the flight. He did not win on that issue but only because he could not show this he was "singled-out" solely because of his race.

You do not have a "constitutional right" to fly; but you do have a "statutory right" to make and enforce contracts like white people can... and yes, that includes the contract you enter when you buy an airline ticket.

So, to respond to your remarks: You CANNOT refuse a person with a ticket just because they are black or of middle eastern descent.

 

[local 12 proud]

Interesting to hear first hand from a muslim who refuses to condemn another muslim or extremism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4...ted&search=

 

[wnbubbleboy]

You do not have a "constitutional right" to fly; but you do have a "statutory right" to make and enforce contracts like white people can... and yes, that includes the contract you enter when you buy an airline ticket.

So, to respond to your remarks: You CANNOT refuse a person with a ticket just because they are black or of middle eastern descent.

This by the way is a racist statement. Categorizing people by the color of their skin either way is racist.

Regardless of color or religion we are American and my rights as a free person stop at your nose. These people know after 9-11 Americans are suspect since the 19 killers were primarily Muslim that we get nervous around suspect behavior of a certain group, who has already done it once. That is just as bad as punching some one in the nose an then stating I am racist for saying you did so.


These people have an agenda to assume every act is an assault against their religion. CAIR though is a primarily ARAB organization funded by the Saudi's to promote an agenda to bring Sharia law to the United States.

You are falling right into the trap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

 

[Gilding the Lily]

This by the way is a racist statement. Categorizing people by the color of their skin either way is racist.

I am only repeating the current "Civil Rights Law" which states:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens..."
42 U.S.C. 1981

If you have a problem with our "Civil Rights Law," then take it up with your Congressman.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

I am only repeating the current "Civil Rights Law" which states:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens..."
42 U.S.C. 1981

If you have a problem with our "Civil Rights Law," then take it up with your Congressman.

The way you're using it is out of context. Here it is in context of the way it is written. It's context is regarding covenyance of property:


TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY

Sec. 1982. Property rights of citizens

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to
inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal
property.
(R.S. Sec. 1978.)

Codification

R.S. Sec. 1978 derived from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, Sec. 1, 14
Stat. 27.
Section was formerly classified to section 42 of Title 8, Aliens and
Nationality.

Ex. Ord. No. 11063. Equal Opportunity in Housing

Ex. Ord. No. 11063, Nov. 20, 1962, 27 F.R. 11527, as amended by Ex.
Ord. No. 12259, Dec. 31, 1980, 46 F.R. 1253; Ex. Ord. No. 12892, Sec. 6-
604, Jan. 17, 1994, 59 F.R. 2939, provided:
WHEREAS the granting of Federal assistance for the provision,
rehabilitation, or operation of housing and related facilities from
which Americans are excluded because of their race, color, creed, or
national origin is unfair, unjust, and inconsistent with the public
policy of the United States as manifested in its Constitution and laws;
and
WHEREAS the Congress in the Housing Act of 1949 [see Short Title
note set out under section 1441 of this title] has declared that the
general welfare and security of the Nation and the health and living
standards of its people require the realization as soon as feasible of
the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every
American family; and
WHEREAS discriminatory policies and practices based upon race,
color, creed, or national origin now operate to deny many Americans the
benefits of housing financed through Federal assistance and as a
consequence prevent such assistance from providing them with an
alternative to substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, and overcrowded housing;
and
WHEREAS such discriminatory policies and practices result in
segregated patterns of housing and necessarily produce other forms of
discrimination and segregation which deprive many Americans of equal
opportunity in the exercise of their unalienable rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and
WHEREAS the executive branch of the Government, in faithfully
executing the laws of the United States which authorize Federal
financial assistance, directly or indirectly, for the provision,
rehabilitation, and operation of housing and related facilities, is
charged with an obligation and duty to assure that those laws are fairly
administered and that benefits thereunder are made available to all
Americans without regard to their race, color, creed, or national origin:

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The way you're using it is out of context. Here it is in context of the way it is written. It's context is regarding covenyance of property:
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY

Sec. 1982. Property rights of citizens

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to
inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal
property.
(R.S. Sec. 1978.)

Actually, I am not using it out of context. Look at what you cited!!! You cited 42 U.S.C. 1982.

Now, go to my post above and look at what I cited: 42 U.S.C. 1981.

You are talking about a completely different statute. Go back and read the correct statute!

I suggest you do better research next time you accuse me of something.

I know that you are probably some type of Jeffersonian-Federalist who thinks these Federal Civil Rights Statutes are bogus; but seriously, it does not excuse your blatant disregard for the truth.