They've defended the Klan's right to march. But they have done so based on the Klan's right to their political beliefs. To be defended on the same basis would have meant that the bar owner would have had to define himself as having made a political statement. I'm not surprised he was reluctant to do so.
And which license did he lose? His liquor license? Might the case have been made that, in view of his display of materials that are considered "incendiary", to serve alcoholic beverages as well might be detrimental to the public safety?
Did he post his intent to display an artistic collection meant to be a satire on historic depictions of black people, or did he coyly let people draw their own conclusions about his intent? Did he collect and display other ethnic slur posters and artwork? I've seen some heinous depictions of the Irish from the 1840s... Come to think of it, they look a little like monkeys too. Drunken ones with red hair.
Let's not be naive here. The day they serve Johhny Walker to the point of inebriation in art galleries, you will have a point.
Regards--
Mary Anne
Current Events » in reply to Re: Mr. Libertarian
Did he call the ACLU?
The whole thread (43 posts)
- More leftist hypocracy
- Did you read this first?
- Re: Hyppocrat
- About the art
- Typical.
- Re: More leftist hypocracy
- your "control reflexive liberalism"
