Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
J
firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
Thursday, November 05, 2009
By Melinda Deslatte
Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a
couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday,
after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from
officials including the governor.
Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of
State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign
the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish,
Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."
Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.
When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying
interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up
suffering. In interviews, he said he refers the couples to other justices of
the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a
marriage," Bardwell said in an October interview with The Associated Press.
"I think those children suffer, and I won't help put them through it."
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Smiler
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he
> held firmly to his
>convictions. Although I personally disagree with
> Keith Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were
> misguided.
Not only misguided, but also illegal.
At least there's one less bigot holding public office.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Ray Fischer
>It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
>firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
>Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
And yet you're defending his racism like the good little nazi turd
that you are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
LC
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:38vadd....@news.alt.net...
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> Bardwell, I understand his motivations;
Of course you do, "J Young/J Baker/Oreo"!
"America, with the exception of the jews and niggers, are not a
nation of pigs."
From: "J Baker" <bi...@ass.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:18:20 -0500
Message-ID: <1f4mfa....@news.alt.net>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
"q: what do a nigger and an apple got in commona: both look good hanging
from a tree"
From: "Oreo \(adh\)" <loose...@volcanomail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:18:43 -0500
Organization: Avengers
Message-ID: <1kn0ck....@news.alt.net>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
"All I know is that "J Baker" will be around a long, long time"
From: "J Young" <jyoung...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: How to catch a forging "J Young"
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:27:30 -0500
Organization: neverwrong.org
Message-ID: <1fetv2....@news.alt.net>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
Jimbo
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> firmly to his convictions.
Just like any other job in the US, if you can't perform it, then you
can be replaced. In this particular case, not only was he not
performing his job, but he was violating state and federal law in
refusing to perform it.
Mr. B
> firmly to his convictions.
You mean his outright racism?
> Although I personally disagree with Keith
> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
I understand them too: he is a racist.
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
Do you even bother with reliable, reputable news sources?
-- B
Matt Silberstein
<Jvis...@live.com> in <38vadd....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
>firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
>Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Syd M.
> firmly to his convictions.
He refused to do his job. He lost it.
That's it, Junkie Young.
PDW
Moderator
This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi. In responding
counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
Dionisio
> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
> consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
> remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
"Defending a child's welfare" HA!
What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they
wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."
> In responding
> counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
> same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
> opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
> is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also
refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public
have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the
possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?
He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different
than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than
a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.
And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Nice people have to be bastards every once in a while so that others can fully appreciate
their gentle, loving nature.
-- Dionisio, circa 1993
(Brought to you by SigChanger.)
Moderator
Dionisio wrote:
> Moderator wrote:
> > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
> > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
> > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
> > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
>
> "Defending a child's welfare" HA!
>
> What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they
> wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."
>
>
> > In responding
> > counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
> > same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
> > opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
> > is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
>
> Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also
> refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public
> have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the
> possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?
>
> He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different
> than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than
> a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.
>
> And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?
>
>
No different than a politician who panders to special interest groups
while ignoring the interests of the general public or special interest
groups claiming progressive liberal philosophies while engaging in
rampant and blatant nihilism to the detriment of the most vulnerable
but no one’s calling either of them racists. ROFLMAO. BTW, no
telemarketing calls please. We don’t have any money.
tirebiter
> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
>
> Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
>
> Thursday, November 05, 2009
> By Melinda Deslatte
>
> Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a
> couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday,
> after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from
> officials including the governor.
>
> Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of
> State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign
> the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish,
> Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
>
> Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."
>
> Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.
>
> When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying
> interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up
> suffering.
Why would someone believe that unless they themselves would willingly
heap abuse on children of interracial couples?
But on the other hand, children of interracial couples can grow up to
be President of the United States.
---
a.a. #2273
thomas p.
Too bad you ignored the actual reason he lost his job, i.e. he refused to
follow the law.
W.T.S.
> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
sure you understand what those convictions are, the full effects of those
convictions, taken all the way to the end, are on others as well as
yourself. Make darn sure you're informed (how many of us even watch the
evening local and national news) fully from more than one source. Make sure
you're willing to take both responsibility and action on the results of your
convictions.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Jimbo
> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> > > firmly to his convictions.
>
> > He refused to do his job. He lost it.
> > That's it, Junkie Young.
>
> > PDW
>
> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
> consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
> remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's
welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
Jimbo
> Dionisio wrote:
> > Moderator wrote:
> > > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
> > > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
> > > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
> > > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
>
> > "Defending a child's welfare" HA!
>
> > What a farce! First off, he was breaking the law. Second off, he was *imagining* that they
> > wanted kids. Third off, "Nazi" features a capital "N."
>
> > > In responding
> > > counter to those accusers, I will now no doubt be subjected to those
> > > same epithets. The lesson being, people need to ignore their own
> > > opinions and mimic the majority or else risk being lynched by them. It
> > > is indeed an interesting if not scary time in which to live.
>
> > Again, he wasn't violating anyone's opinions: He was violating the law. He was also
> > refusing to do his job. Next, in this day and age of tight budgets, why should the public
> > have *anyone* on the payroll who is A) Not doing their duty, and B) Opening up the
> > possibility of one heck of a lawsuit? Hmm...?
>
> > He was no different than a Postal worker who refused to deliver the mail. No different
> > than a cop who refused to ticket someone for doing 75 in a school zone. No different than
> > a 911 operator refusing to connect someone reporting a heart attack to the local hospital.
>
> > And since you expect to be called something... How about "pathetic"?
>
> No different than a politician who panders to special
Blah, blah, blah... When in doubt, go of on an tangental rant.
Smiler
But, but, but EVERYONE knows mixed race children are disadvantaged.
For a start, you can't become the President of the USA if you're from a
mixed race family......
Moderator
I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
Canada. lol
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c7/latest/rso-1990-c-c7.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f3/latest/rso-1990-c-f3.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1996-c-31/latest/so-1996-c-31.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-13/latest/so-2002-c-13.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-m3/latest/rso-1990-c-m3.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c12/latest/rso-1990-c-c12.html
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_990114_e.htm
thomas p.
> Jimbo wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because
>>>>> he held firmly to his convictions.
>>>
>>>> He refused to do his job. He lost it.
>>>> That's it, Junkie Young.
>>>
>>>> PDW
>>>
>>> This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
>>> consideration for the JP's reason and the OP's post. I'll have to
>>> remember that considering a child's welfare is racist and risks
>>> carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
>>
>> Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
>> yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's
>> welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
>
> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
> Canada. lol
Are you claiming that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-race
couple because the official does not think there should be such marriages?
I guess you are babbling. lol
Moderator
>
I'm not claiming "that marriage in Canada can be refused to a mixed-
race" but more important, why would you take my word either way?
thomas p.
I don't take your word. I thought that was clear. If you are not claiming
that
it is okay for an official to refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, what
exactly
do you think you are complaining about? The former judge has every right
to not witness such marriages, but he cannot continue to be a judge. Is
that too
complex for you?
Calvin Ramsey
Hey Thomas,
I'm wondering, if you don't take his word, in your previous question,
what reason does he have that you will take his word for this next
question of yours?
In other words, there's no need for you to ask so many questions, if
you're not even going to believe the answer.
Indications show you are one terribly confused individual.
Ciao,
thomas p.
"Calvin Ramsey" <calr...@oaken.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hd6i9h$bce$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
What are you talking about? I really do not know.
>
> In other words, there's no need for you to ask so many questions, if
> you're not even going to believe the answer.
>
> Indications show you are one terribly confused individual.
I may be incredibly naive in asking the following question, but I am going
to try anyway.
We disagree about a number of things. Why not discuss those things and drop
the personal insults?
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:09 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> > > > > firmly to his convictions.
>
> > > > He refused to do his job. He lost it.
> > > > That's it, Junkie Young.
>
> > > > PDW
>
> > > This discussion appears suspiciously void of any mention or
> > > consideration for the JP’s reason and the OP’s post. I’ll have to
> > > remember that considering a child’s welfare is racist and risks
> > > carrying with it the stigma of being labeled a nazi.
>
> > Perhaps you're missing the point where the guy was considering the as
> > yet unborn child's welfare, based on racial makeup??? The child's
> > welfare is the parents business, not the JOP's.
>
> I guess the Family Laws in the States are much different than here in
> Canada. lol
>
Nothing in your link makes children the business of a JOP.
Jimbo
>
Then what was your point, other than to prove your idiocy?
Jimbo
Holy crap! Did the convolutions in your brain suddenly smooth out?
What the hell sense did that make?
Jimbo
> "Calvin Ramsey" <calram...@oaken.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:hd6i9h$bce$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is really nothing on this issue to discuss. A JOP is either
hired or elected to do a job, the job includes a number of state and
federal laws that must be followed in pursuit of that job. He refused
a legally eligible couple a marriage license, in violaton of those
laws, and failed to perform his job. He resigned, probably ahead of
being fired. Case closed.
Gwen Bennet
Reformed.
Strabo
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>
Misguided?
"As one is firmly pro-life and pro-woman, I condemn any television show
that offers a depiction of violence against women as a means of
entertainment, or to increase viewer ratings. Women are God's gift to
man and they should be treated with dignity and respect. People who
abide by a code of decency should boycott such shows."
- J
Want to object to violence against women? Check the government crime
stats for domestic violence and rape by Blacks.
Interracial relationships usually fail and mixed race children
bear the brunt of the parent's misguided decisions.
The JP is correct.
>
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
>
>
>
>
>
> Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
>
>
>
>
> Thursday, November 05, 2009
> By Melinda Deslatte
>
> Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a
> couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday,
> after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from
> officials including the governor.
>
> Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of
> State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign
> the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish,
> Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
>
> Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."
>
> Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.
>
> When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying
> interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up
> suffering. In interviews, he said he refers the couples to other justices of
> the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.
>
> "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a
> marriage," Bardwell said in an October interview with The Associated Press.
> "I think those children suffer, and I won't help put them through it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Strabo
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
> <Jvis...@live.com> in <38vadd....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
>> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
>> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>
> He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
> the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
> gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
>
Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
to sell his house to a black?
>
> [snip]
>
Strabo
Do you believe that a conviction is mutable?
Strabo
Why would someone believe...?
1. Observation.
2. Experience.
2. Crime stats.
>
> But on the other hand, children of interracial couples can grow up to
> be President of the United States.
>
Only if backed by George Soros, the Chicago Machine, Black
Liberationists and if he withholds information concerning birth,
schools, passports, etc.
>
> a.a. #2273
>
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/adducr/age_race_specific.pdf
Population In America
White: 80%
Black: 15%
All other combined: 5%
US Crime Incidence Per 100,000 Population
ALL CRIME
White: 615.1 40% All Other Races: 1,534.9 60%
Violent Crime
White: 164.7 32% All Other Races: 510.2 68%
Murder
White: 3.0 20% All Other Races: 14.8 80%
Forcible Rape
White: 7.3 36% All Other Races: 20.3 64%
Robbery
White: 23.0 17% All Other Races: 132.8 83%
Aggravated Assault
White: 131.5 38% All Other Races: 342.3 62%
Property Crime
White: 450.4 44% All Other Races: 1,024.7 56%
Burglary
White: 84.7 51% All Other Races: 165.9 49%
Larceny-theft
White: 329.6 44% All Other Races: 741.4 56%
Vehicle Theft
White: 36.0 31% All Other Races: 117.4 69%
Arson
White: 6.0 74% All Other Races: 8.1 26%
Forgery/Counterfeiting
White: 33.8 44% All Other Races: 76.6 56%
Fraud
White: 99.7 45% All Other Races: 221.3 55%
Embezzlement
White: 5.8 44% All Other Races: 13.2 56%
Stolen Property
White: 30.8 30% All Other Races: 101.1 70%
Weapons Violations
White: 43.9 33% All Other Races: 133.0 67%
Sex Offenses
White: 29.1 59% All Other Races: 49.5 41%
Gambling
White: 3.1 16% All Other Races: 20.0 84%
Drug Violations
White: 450.2 39% All Other Races: 1,165.6 61%
------------------------------------
Even Though Whites Constitute 80% Of The Population,
White Crime is LESS THAN all racial groups combined.
Population In America
White: 80%
Black: 15%
All other combined: 5%
The statistics:
Non-White Crime...
Arson: 1.3 times greater than Whites.
Sex Offenses: 1.7 times greater than Whites.
Burglary: 2 times greater than Whites.
Property Crime: 2.2 times greater than Whites.
Larceny-theft: 2.2 times greater than Whites.
Fraud: 2.2 times greater than Whites.
Embezzlement: 2.2 times greater than Whites.
Forgery/Counterfeiting: 2.3 times greater than Whites.
Drug Abuse Violations: 2.5 times greater than Whites.
Aggravated Assault: 2.6 times greater than Whites.
Forcible Rape: 2.8 times greater than Whites.
Weapons Violations: 3 times greater than Whites.
Motor Vehicle Theft: 3.2 times greater than Whites.
Stolen Property: 3.3 times greater than Whites.
Murder: 4.5 times greater than Whites.
Robbery: 5.7 times greater than Whites.
Gambling: 6.6 times greater than Whites.
Violent Crime: 3 times greater than Whites.
All Crime: 2.5 times greater than Whites.
Race is a major factor in crime.
20% of the US population commits 75% of ALL CRIME.
Here are some historical crime statistics by race.
Race-specific Arrest Rates
All Crimes
Year All White Non-White
1993 1,144.5 827.8 2,721.0
1994 1,140.1 841.3 2,610.8
1995 1,134.5 832.3 2,606.1
1996 1,069.5 801.6 2,360.2
1997 1,050.0 780.2 2,335.8
1998 956.9 722.1 2,064.1
1999 864.8 655.2 1,844.0
2000 809.0 616.7 1,698.6
2001 791.3 615.1 1,534.9
Race-specific Arrest Rates
All Violent Crimes
Year All White Non-White
1993 307.5 192.1 881.8
1994 310.3 199.3 856.7
1995 315.3 203.6 858.7
1996 285.4 188.4 752.7
1997 289.0 191.6 753.2
1998 270.0 183.4 678.8
1999 249.8 172.4 611.3
2000 236.7 164.4 570.9
2001 230.9 164.7 510.2
Race-specific Arrest Rates
Murder
Year All White Non-White
1993 9.9 4.7 35.5
1994 8.9 4.5 30.7
1995 8.7 4.5 29.4
1996 7.5 3.9 24.9
1997 7.3 3.7 24.6
1998 6.8 3.7 21.7
1999 6.0 3.2 19.0
2000 5.5 2.9 17.5
2001 5.2 3.0 14.8
Rapes and Sexual Assaults For 2005
Of the 111,590 white victims, 44.5 percent of the offenders
were white, 33.6 percent of the offenders were black.
That's 49,657 white women raped by whites
and 37,494 white women raped by blacks
with black males at 8% of the population.
Of the 36,620 black victims , 100 percent of the offenders
were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white.
In the United States in 2005, 37,494 white females were sexually
assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black
females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
So, if you were a woman walking late at night and saw a white male
walking toward you on one side of the street and a black male on the
other, which side would you choose?
No, you can't just disappear or fly away. Choose one.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/adducr/age_race_specific.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/index.html
Jimbo
What would crime stats have to do with an interracial child? You know
what, nevermind, it's irrelevant in any case. He failed to carry out
the duties of his office, case closed.
Mark Sebree
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
>
> >> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> >> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> >> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>
> > He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
> > the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
> > gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
>
> Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
> to sell his house to a black?
>
Assuming that the house is already for sale, a white person cannot
legally refuse to sell the house to a black person assuming that a
fair offer was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
Keep in mind that it is not unusual for the buyer and the seller to
not meet until the closing as well, which means that would be the
first time that the race of the buyer is known.
These come under the equal opportunity laws and the civil rights laws.
Mark Sebree
Jimbo
> On Nov 9, 8:52 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
> > Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
> > > <Jvisi...@live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
> > >> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> > >> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> > >> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>
> > > He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
> > > the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
> > > gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
>
> > Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
> > to sell his house to a black?
>
> Assuming that the house is already for sale, a white person cannot
> legally refuse to sell the house to a black person assuming that a
> fair offer was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
Just a slight alteration of the wording, a white person cannot legally
refuse to sell that house to a black person, based on the fact that
they are black, assuming that the house was for sale, and a fair offer
was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
> Keep in mind that it is not unusual for the buyer and the seller to
> not meet until the closing as well, which means that would be the
> first time that the race of the buyer is known.
>
True, but there's a further clarification that needs to be addressed,
back before these laws existed, the problem wasn't so much the
individual seller, although they were part of the problem, but the
institutionalized discrimination. Realators would not show houses to
blacks in white neighborhoods to begin with, loan officers would often
stall and block loan applications from blacks applying for homes in
white neighborhoods, and a lot of similar actions that are now
illegal.
> These come under the equal opportunity laws and the civil rights laws.
>
All states have an equivalent of the federal housing act, and they
vary somewhat from state to state, but they all have to meet the
minimum requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
MarkA
> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56690
>
>
>
>
>
> Louisiana Justice Quits after Interracial Wed Flap
>
>
>
>
> Thursday, November 05, 2009
> By Melinda Deslatte
>
> Baton Rouge, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a
> couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday,
> after weeks of refusing to step down despite calls for his ouster from
> officials including the governor.
>
> Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of
> State Jay Dardenne and no explanation of his decision: "I do hereby resign
> the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish,
> Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."
>
> Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."
>
> Bardwell, who is white, refused to marry Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay.
>
> When questioned, Bardwell acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying
> interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up
> suffering. In interviews, he said he refers the couples to other justices of
> the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.
>
> "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a
> marriage," Bardwell said in an October interview with The Associated Press.
> "I think those children suffer, and I won't help put them through it."
I heard that Bardwell is planning to become a pharmacist, so he can refuse
to fill prescriptions he doesn't agree with.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
thomas p.
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:JF3Km.12473$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
Do you believe your question has anything to do with a justice of the peace
refusing
to marry two people because one is Black and one is White? That refusal is
illegal
whatever the discrimination laws concerning housing say or do not say.
Matt Silberstein
The existence of such laws are not a matter of belief. There are no
such laws in the U.S. There are various covenants regarding real
estate that state that the property may not be sold to a Black, but
those have not been enforceable since the mid-1960s.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Strabo
Illegal?
Show me the law.
Strabo
> On Nov 9, 8:52 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
>>> <Jvisi...@live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
>>>> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
>>>> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>>> He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
>>> the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
>>> gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
>> Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
>> to sell his house to a black?
>>
>
> Assuming that the house is already for sale, a white person cannot
> legally refuse to sell the house to a black person assuming that a
> fair offer was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
Show me the law.
>
> Keep in mind that it is not unusual for the buyer and the seller to
> not meet until the closing as well, which means that would be the
> first time that the race of the buyer is known.
>
> These come under the equal opportunity laws and the civil rights laws.
>
Applicable to...?
>
> Mark Sebree
Strabo
> On Nov 9, 9:44 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 8:52 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
>>>> <Jvisi...@live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
>>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
>>>>> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
>>>>> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
>>>> He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
>>>> the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
>>>> gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
>>> Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
>>> to sell his house to a black?
>> Assuming that the house is already for sale, a white person cannot
>> legally refuse to sell the house to a black person assuming that a
>> fair offer was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
> Just a slight alteration of the wording, a white person cannot legally
> refuse to sell that house to a black person, based on the fact that
> they are black, assuming that the house was for sale, and a fair offer
> was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
Show me the law.
Jimbo
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:JF3Km.12473$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
> >> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
>
> >>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> >>>> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> >>>> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
> >>> He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
> >>> the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
> >>> gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
>
> >> Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
> >> to sell his house to a black?
>
> > Do you believe your question has anything to do with a justice of the peace
> > refusing
> > to marry two people because one is Black and one is White? That refusal is
> > illegal
> > whatever the discrimination laws concerning housing say or do not say.
>
> Illegal?
>
Look up "The Fair Housing Act of 1968"
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 9:44 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 8:52 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
> >>>> <Jvisi...@live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
> >>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> >>>>> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> >>>>> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
> >>>> He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
> >>>> the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
> >>>> gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
> >>> Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
> >>> to sell his house to a black?
> >> Assuming that the house is already for sale, a white person cannot
> >> legally refuse to sell the house to a black person assuming that a
> >> fair offer was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
> > Just a slight alteration of the wording, a white person cannot legally
> > refuse to sell that house to a black person, based on the fact that
> > they are black, assuming that the house was for sale, and a fair offer
> > was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
> Show me the law.
>
>
The Fair Housing Act of 1968. Give it a read.
>
>
>
> >> Keep in mind that it is not unusual for the buyer and the seller to
> >> not meet until the closing as well, which means that would be the
> >> first time that the race of the buyer is known.
>
> > True, but there's a further clarification that needs to be addressed,
> > back before these laws existed, the problem wasn't so much the
> > individual seller, although they were part of the problem, but the
> > institutionalized discrimination. Realators would not show houses to
> > blacks in white neighborhoods to begin with, loan officers would often
> > stall and block loan applications from blacks applying for homes in
> > white neighborhoods, and a lot of similar actions that are now
> > illegal.
>
> >> These come under the equal opportunity laws and the civil rights laws.
>
> > All states have an equivalent of the federal housing act, and they
> > vary somewhat from state to state, but they all have to meet the
> > minimum requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jimbo
> > On Nov 9, 9:44 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 8:52 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:09:17 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J"
> >>>> <Jvisi...@live.com> in <38vadd.gc8.1...@news.alt.net> wrote:
> >>>>> It's a shame this man was forced to resign his position because he held
> >>>>> firmly to his convictions. Although I personally disagree with Keith
> >>>>> Bardwell, I understand his motivations; even if they were misguided.
> >>>> He broke the law. But, apparently, you think that it is OK to break
> >>>> the law if someone is sincere and holds to their beliefs. So, I
> >>>> gather, you would have supported him if he married a gay couple.
> >>> Do you believe there's a law saying that a white cannot refuse
> >>> to sell his house to a black?
> >> Assuming that the house is already for sale, a white person cannot
> >> legally refuse to sell the house to a black person assuming that a
> >> fair offer was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
> > Just a slight alteration of the wording, a white person cannot legally
> > refuse to sell that house to a black person, based on the fact that
> > they are black, assuming that the house was for sale, and a fair offer
> > was made and the contingencies were reasonable.
>
> Show me the law.
>
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of
discrimination:
1. Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his
race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and
families with children were added to the list of protected classes by
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
2. Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or
privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
3. Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference
of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin
(and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with
children.)
4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's
enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory
reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or
encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.
Jimbo
The Fair Housing Act.
Mark Sebree
Jimbo has already answered these questions.
Mark Sebree
>
> > Mark Sebree
Strabo
The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination
by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate
companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or
other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose
discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of:
* race or color
* religion
* sex
* national origin
* familial status, or
* disability.
This has nothing to do with me.
Strabo
The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination
by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate
companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or
other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose
discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of:
* race or color
* religion
* sex
* national origin
* familial status, or
* disability.
This has nothing to do with me.
>>
>>
Strabo
The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination
Jimbo
Actually, it goes farther than that. The law was strengthened in 1988
to include private sales as well.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
At what point did you think that it's all about you?
Strabo
Sure it did. Doesn't matter. Privileged characters don't rank in
my book. You can take your thousands of laws and stick 'em
where the sun don't shine. Federalism is irrelevant. Defunct.
The black market is the common market. The greater populace is looking
for alternatives. As the economy sinks they will find these alternatives
in freedom and the opportunity to rebuild.