- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NYC passes law: $250,000 fine for saying “illegal alien” outloud
Posted on 9/29/19 at 7:20 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/29/19 at 7:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Shorty, try not to be so disingenuous. I’ve answered the question three times
Lie
quote:false
The ordinances in question are essentially very generic protected class statutes
Posted on 9/29/19 at 7:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Are you looking at Title 8 of the New York city municipal code? I linked it earlier. It is a very, VERY generic protected class ordinance.quote:false
The ordinances in question are essentially very generic protected class statutes
If you’re talking about some different statute or ordinance, link or copy it.
quote:
Have any of you three taken the time to find and read the ordinances themselves, as opposed to the 29-page memo from de Blasio regarding the manner in which he wants to see it enforced? Or (worse yet) only the talking points.
This post was edited on 9/29/19 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 9/29/19 at 7:52 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I was wrong. I had already answered the question FOUR times, not just three.quote:Lie
Shorty, try not to be so disingenuous. I’ve answered the question three times
12:52pm. I have no idea whether I found every ordinance that de Blasio references in his memo, but the ones I have seen are pretty generic “protected class” pabulum.
01:13pm. ordinances are fairly-generic, public accommodation, protected-class pabulum
01:29pm. ordinances could “quite possibly be construed as constitutional“ because, again, the ordinances are fairly generic public-accommodation pabulum
01:32pm. the Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed the question of public accommodation laws and protected classes
this whole thing is yet another example of this board acting like the children’s game of telephone.
The memo was broader than the ordinances. The article was broader than the memo. And the hysterical mob on this forum is interpreting even that article more broadly than it was written. All exactly as I described in my very first post.
And no amount of reasonable discussion seems able to get the discussion back on track, though Troy DID finally seem to grasp the basic concept, because he finally switched to “I just do not care what SCOTUS says.”
Hank out.
This post was edited on 9/29/19 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 9/30/19 at 8:10 am to AggieHank86
Shorty, did I (or did I not) answer the question FOUR times before your claim I did not answer it at all?
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 8:24 am
Popular
Back to top

2





