re: NASCAR Driver Loses Sponsorship for a Comment His Father Made before he was born

quote:

---

If the bill of rights was only intended to apply to the government, can one individual violate the constitutional rights of another? Something to consider. Since it has already been determined that corporations are "people", such discussion would invariably extend to them.

---

This is so beyond scary I have no idea what to say.

I don't understand why conservatives and others on the right are trying to run to the government over these issues. The less government the better, and while I believe Lily is moronic here, there's no way shape or form I want the government to compel private businesses.

Not if it is showing unwarranted prejudice.

quote:

---

Not if it is showing unwarranted prejudice.

---

Why not?

Why is Lily required to give a nascar driver a sponsorship? Who requires it? Who enforces it?

I get their right as a private company to do what they choose, I just don't get their reasoning one damn bit.

I guess there's some folks in the PR department that think very little of the general population. They apparently think someone out there will see that his dad said the n-word once in the 80s, associate that with his son, and THEN associate that with one of the many sponsors on his car and think "that company must be JUST like this guy's dad! They're right there on his car and everything!"

His dad apologized back in the day and recently as well, said he basically didn't know any better at the time and that it was horrible of him; he didn't have any other controversy until it came back up recently. Dredging up shite like this from that long ago, even 10 years ago, is ridiculous and does need to stop before it gets worse.

quote:

---

I just don't get their reasoning one damn bit.

---

I don't understand lots of things. That doesn't mean they're wrong.

quote:

---

I guess there's some folks in the PR department that think very little of the general population.

---

Or they have information that you're not privy to and this was the correct decision to turn a better profit?

quote:

---

Either you like capitalism or you don't.

---

That's so flawed comment.

quote:

---

I am not going to shite all over my defense of business and want more government involvement because my "side" is losing.

---

Yeah but you have a life

quote:

---

The question I have is what do you want to do about it?

---

Make stand. Stop being silent and hiding behind "they have a right".

Start using your rights to speak out.

quote:

---

If the bill of rights was only intended to apply to the government, can one individual violate the constitutional rights of another?

---

No, obviously. The first clause of your sentence answers the question contained in the second clause.

I'm not necessarily calling for more government regulation. I'm just saying that perhaps we haven't completely thought through this issue before giving out reflexive answer that "of course one individual can violate another's constitutional rights." This is a complicated issue given that activist courts have come along and created any number of constitutional rights not actually mentioned in the constitution.

For instance, take the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery. This was clearly intended to abolish slave ownership by private citizens, not simply by government agencies. So it's not possible to say that constitutional restraints only apply to government institutions with no exception.

Curiously, the language of the 13th amendment permits those convicted of crimes to be held as slaves or placed in indentured servitude. I realize that this is to preclude nonsense lawsuits from prisoners serving life sentences or working on chain gangs, but it opens up some interesting possibilities.