Originally Posted by teamroper60
Seriously? You want to compare neo-nazi's to Augusta National? For real? But for the record, neo-nazi's are actually allowed to exist and spew their specific version of hate under the first amendment.
Regarding the 14th, I don't get what you are implying. My first inclination was that you were referring to the equal protection clause but since that relates to the administration of justice and the protection of life, liberty and property but that doesn't really apply to an individual until somebody does bodily harm to another person. Then I considered the privileges or immunities clause but that clause really pertains to forbidding states from writing discriminatory laws. So I will admit to ignorance with regard to your statement and ask for clarification as to how it relates to this discussion..
Regarding your response to my question..... You state you don't let just anyone come into your home. So obviously, you have some type of criteria as to who is allowed and who is not. What makes your criteria for who can enter your home any more valid than the criteria of any other person or group's criteria for who can enter theirs? Your definition of what is wrong? The governments? Some other groups? I submit that it is up to each individual (or group of individuals) to set that criteria for themselves, provided they are not a public entity or funded in any way by tax dollars. My point is you have (and should have) the right to choose who is welcome in your home. Augusta National should have that same right.
No, you're not getting it. My point isn't that neo-nazi's are not allowed to exist. My point is that they obviously are allowed to exist, yet that does not make their views okay, or moral, or immune from criticism. Just like Augusta National was "allowed" to discriminate, but that doesn't mean it was right. And no, I do not think the two are at the same level, the point was to show the flaw in your rationale by applying the same logic to a more extreme factual example that you couldn't possibly disagree with. Judging from your last paragraph, it looks like you think there is nothing objectionable about a person barring another from his home solely because of the color of his skin. If that's the case, then the disagreement is deeper and probably off topic.
You're not getting the Equal Protection Clause, either, by the way. The "life, liberty and property" part is the due process clause. The Equal Protection Clause follows and prohibits discrimination. Anyway, the point is just that because the 14th Amendment only prohibits discrimination by State government (more or less), and thus private organizations are free to discriminate, that doesn't make discrimination by private organizations ok, or insulate them from criticism. Its just not illegal. I assumed that you would agree, in my extreme example, that neo-nazi's are objectionable, even if "allowed." Apparently, I was wrong, and it looks like the conversation will end there.