Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
26. You're right
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:08 PM
Dec 2015

We do not have Muslims being removed from their jobs en masse as a matter of law, then removed from their homes and put into ghettoes, and having all their property and assets absconded by the government. Nor are the totality of mosques being destroyed by large government-sponsored troops. And certainly not the later things that happened: the death camps, etc.

But it is something we have to guard against, for sure. Should a demagogue such as Trump be elected (I put nothing past historical oddity), we could be in serious, serious jeopardy. The president's speech tonight should hopefully go a long way to restoring a touch of sanity ... though I fear it will fall on deaf ears for a portion of American society. Fortunately, they are still a minority, though a loud and significant one.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It must be alright then to have a Jewish free zone, and a black free zone now also. LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #1
The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Beside Themselves With All The Distractions cantbeserious Dec 2015 #2
+1 Populist_Prole Dec 2015 #24
The judge is actually right. Someone from the CAIR needs to go in and get denied service. X_Digger Dec 2015 #3
What happens if they post a second sign, "We reserve the right to deny service - we are armed"? leveymg Dec 2015 #6
You can put up a sign that says, "Unattended children will be eaten." X_Digger Dec 2015 #10
The threat can be a crime - that's circumstantial - if the owner has a reputation for baby eating. leveymg Dec 2015 #11
I do disagree, yes. X_Digger Dec 2015 #12
What if the gun shop owner had a history of threats against Muslims? leveymg Dec 2015 #14
Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no. X_Digger Dec 2015 #16
Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds leveymg Dec 2015 #19
I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat. X_Digger Dec 2015 #21
If the sign were surrounded by firearms, it might. That is exactly the case here. leveymg Dec 2015 #22
So every sign in a gun shop is a threat because it's a gun shop? "No checks." (OR I'LL SHOOT YA!) X_Digger Dec 2015 #23
The key provision is also that the display is on another's property. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #25
Muslims in this country have enough speech against minorities, etc, that you don't Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #18
Not attempting to justify one set of wrongs with another. leveymg Dec 2015 #20
Wrong. closeupready Dec 2015 #7
Why do you think the ACLU had William Smith and James Yates attempt to get a marriage license in KY? X_Digger Dec 2015 #9
The owner can call his store anything he wants LittleBlue Dec 2015 #4
well no but it is still odious. Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #5
You're right frazzled Dec 2015 #26
In some respects, yes. And I'd be lying if I said closeupready Dec 2015 #8
The case fell apart because to have standing you actually must be denied service. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #13
The plaintiff had no standing. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #15
It was dismissed for lack of standing, because claimants did not show that anyone was refused Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #17
No The River Dec 2015 #27
Actual refusal and discrimination has to happen in order to sue. And my friend you live in a country Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Isn't this how it started...»Reply #26