zappasguitar
Well-known member
Did you do that in addition to making the aforementioned comparison?
I didn't read it and don't remember you doing that, but SHAME ON YOU if you did!
cell phones not allowed when first lady eats a burger
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Did you do that in addition to making the aforementioned comparison?
I didn't read it and don't remember you doing that, but SHAME ON YOU if you did!
It seems squirrelly but I'm not ready to make a full commitment.
I can't see what threat would justify yanking people's phones.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
here is the law....it is illegal and it is not true that if you are willing to pay you can continue such practice....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They're directly related, as stated. *shrug*
And it says may bring "Civil Action"... Just as I said it did. Now if they do hand you a restraining order (and it is a business) and you violate it, then you are practicing "contempt of court" which is an entirely different animal.
Anyway, if you do this to somebody because they are black they can sue, just as I said they can.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
zappasguitar
Well-known member
How so?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no....it clearly said the AG, the government attorney general, can bring an action to force an injunction, IOW, shut your business down until you comply with the act....
i never said they couldn't sue, i said you can be forced to stop, so it is untrue to say that if you are willing to pay you can continue discriminating
Now, we know that a business can legally require you to give up your cell or go elsewhere.
Further we know that they can hire or appoint "bouncers" or other goons to enforce those rules.
Now we need to find out what limits the courts have put onto the SS as a government entity and what they have determined is "reasonable" for them to limit and how they are considered when working in the protection capacity rather than the counterfeit bills capacity...
Is there a reasonable threat from a cell phone that would allow a government entity to confiscate cells in order to protect the privacy of the first family while in public?
Further we know that they can hire or appoint "bouncers" or other goons to enforce those rules.
Now we need to find out what limits the courts have put onto the SS as a government entity and what they have determined is "reasonable" for them to limit and how they are considered when working in the protection capacity rather than the counterfeit bills capacity...
Is there a reasonable threat from a cell phone that would allow a government entity to confiscate cells in order to protect the privacy of the first family while in public?
Civil action, it says he can bring civil action, it isn't criminal law. Period.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Both violations of the politicians' kids. Do I actually have to spoon feed you?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
where did i say it was criminal? i said it was outlawed, prohibited, illegal...you can be in non conformance with the law and it not be criminal...think building codes
do you know what an injunction is?
"Outlawed" suggests criminal law. Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal law? And I do know what an injunction is, again that would be a "contempt of court" not the same thing as a criminal offense. Again, not criminal law.
Anyway, you are right, the judge can close the business down. But they cannot send you to jail for kicking somebody out for being white.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what aforementioned comparison would you be talking about?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you think it does....and you think it suggests it....but it is a fact that something can be illegal and not criminal....i never said this was criminal, YOU did....
as i said....think building codes....it illegal, prohibited, outlawed to build buildings out of code, you're not going to jail, it is not criminal, you will appear in civil court....you will pay a fine and make your building to code....or they will shut you down and if you don't comply, you will be in contempt which IS criminal
damo....if you don't believe me....do you your own research and get back to me....you are dead wrong here
uscitizen
Villified User
Re-read that 2nd to the last sentence in my post please and rethink whether you want to say I'm "wrong". Especially the first four words of the 2nd to the last sentence.
Then begin to pay attention. And contempt is not criminal, it is a judicial power to put you in jail for contempt you are not convicted of it, you are never tried for it, it is not a crime.
If it were "outlawed" to kick people out for being black you wouldn't be able to do it at your home, and it wouldn't be solely a civil matter where you can be sued and have judicial injunction but not be convicted....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
there is both civil and criminal contempt....but for civil if the time is less than six months, most courts hold it is civil contempt and no attorney, if more than six months, you get an attorney as most courts hold that attaches the 6th
as to your last....you're wrong....did you even read my statement about the civil building codes being illegal, outlawed, prohibited, YET that is not criminal? the civil rights act (which we are talking about) is not about your home, why you keep talking about that is beyond me. it is about public establishments, you are prohibited from denying service based on color and if you don't cease such practice you will be given an injunction to stop, if you continue to violate the injunction, you will be held in contempt....
so it is beyond me why you still maintain it must be "criminal" and that so long as you keep paying under a lawsuit you can continue to deny service or segregate based on race.....your belief is simply not true and has no foundation in the law
First, I will repeat that 2nd to last sentence of that previous post....
Anyway, you are right, the judge can close the business down.
However, if something is "outlawed" it would be illegal at your home as well as a civil matter (and still criminal) at your business. This doesn't even merit a civil matter at your house, it is certainly not "criminal" nor is it "outlawed".
I keep bringing up the home because it makes it clear the difference between a civil matter (one that you can be sued for, or have judicial injunction, but cannot be arrested and tried for) and a criminal matter (one you are arrested and tried for with a result of either guilty or not).
Your business (and you if you weren't smart enough to put an LLC or a Corp between you and the business) can be sued if you throw somebody out for their race at a business open to the public (memberships can stop this from happening), but you will never be arrested and tried for it. At the most if you break an injunction you can be put in jail for contempt, but that is not a trial and is again not criminal law.
Now the criminal matter will be criminal regardless of where you are at, including your home or a private club that serves members only and rejects members for whatever reason...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so your issue is with the word "outlaw"? do you agree that something can be prohibited and illegal but not be criminal? yes or no?
and once again, i never, ever, ever, said it was criminal...i was wrong about the contempt being only criminal, i was just quickly thinking jail and forgot that there is both civil and criminal contempt....