Yeah except it wasn't a crime. It was a tyrannical enforcement of a policy. But you go enjoy that world changing picnic while critiquing patriots for how they chose to make a stand and difference. Did you know its illegal in Georgia to eat fried chicken with utensils? Its safer to not use a fork and comply or maybe you can PICNIC with a fork and knife outside a chicken joint to make a profound statement. Since the gene therapy injection was mandated you should also comply with that, in fact have a vaccination picnic that is a great example of what works!
Did you not actually read this article you have been ranting about for the last few hours? They refused to leave when asked to. This is not a complicated situation. Are you just as understanding if people were refusing to leave your own property when asked? That's great-reset type BS, the 'you will own nothing and be happy'. Count me out.
Here’s the thing, if a black or gay person was asked to leave the premises would that be constitutional? Think about this man like Rosa Parks. Since then, we have changed the laws of discrimination but it wouldn’t have been done without people defying unconstitutional situations. The mandate by the mayor is over reach and the actions of the restaurant are discrimination. Both are unconstitutional. Period. This isn’t a grey area. Refusing to be served was the jumping off point that led to arrest. He won’t be held accountable if he has a good attorney. People have to defy in order to bring it to attention to the courts.
If you have discrimination on one side, and slavery and destruction of property rights on the other side of the equation, I'm all down with discrimination. Its simply the lesser of two evils. Both groups you mention in your example assert 'rights' to commit crime now, based on the 'civil rights' rubric that was actually used to attack the civil rights of all others. I'd put it to you that the massive crime and indoctrination against children in schools and elsewhere came about because of these 'rights'. Objectively and in hindsight, I dont think any of these things thought of as victories actually were.
The example I gave earlier still holds - if criminals assert a right to enter your home and attack you, and you cant discriminate as the owner of that property to contest this.. do you really have civilization? Or just a fading vestige of what once was.
Yeah except it wasn't a crime. It was a tyrannical enforcement of a policy. But you go enjoy that world changing picnic while critiquing patriots for how they chose to make a stand and difference. Did you know its illegal in Georgia to eat fried chicken with utensils? Its safer to not use a fork and comply or maybe you can PICNIC with a fork and knife outside a chicken joint to make a profound statement. Since the gene therapy injection was mandated you should also comply with that, in fact have a vaccination picnic that is a great example of what works!
Did you not actually read this article you have been ranting about for the last few hours? They refused to leave when asked to. This is not a complicated situation. Are you just as understanding if people were refusing to leave your own property when asked? That's great-reset type BS, the 'you will own nothing and be happy'. Count me out.
Here’s the thing, if a black or gay person was asked to leave the premises would that be constitutional? Think about this man like Rosa Parks. Since then, we have changed the laws of discrimination but it wouldn’t have been done without people defying unconstitutional situations. The mandate by the mayor is over reach and the actions of the restaurant are discrimination. Both are unconstitutional. Period. This isn’t a grey area. Refusing to be served was the jumping off point that led to arrest. He won’t be held accountable if he has a good attorney. People have to defy in order to bring it to attention to the courts.
If you have discrimination on one side, and slavery and destruction of property rights on the other side of the equation, I'm all down with discrimination. Its simply the lesser of two evils. Both groups you mention in your example assert 'rights' to commit crime now, based on the 'civil rights' rubric that was actually used to attack the civil rights of all others. I'd put it to you that the massive crime and indoctrination against children in schools and elsewhere came about because of these 'rights'. Objectively and in hindsight, I dont think any of these things thought of as victories actually were.
The example I gave earlier still holds - if criminals assert a right to enter your home and attack you, and you cant discriminate as the owner of that property to contest this.. do you really have civilization? Or just a fading vestige of what once was.