l***@gmx.com
2011-10-22 07:32:42 UTC
As a legal issue that historically was a big one for racial civil
rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically finally made it
against the law to refuse to serve and to refuse to provide public
services on the basis of race.
Since 1964, however, civil rights hate in America has learned to be
deceptive and dishonest in finding ways to continue those practices
from the perspective of most of us.
Avoiding being explicit about the basis being the most common change
to the practices that were once loud and public or worse, where not a
sign over the water fountain or the door, about why the persons were
refusing to serve some of their customers.
Practioners claim that the refusing to serve customers and refusing to
provide the public services they provide to their relationships, is
not against the law unless persons do so for racial reasons.
Which in Northern IL in real actual cases of what its like for people
the area wants money from, to do business with Northern IL, seems to
be a common practice in Lake County in particular, where the county
seat in Waukegan does not view the practice as harassment or illegal.
To the point of actual cases of persons moving to the area lured with
fraud about the lower cost of living, to take a beloved family pet in
an emergency to the local ER veterinary care, to have the vet on duty
that night on the east side of the state in Lake, tell the pet owner
waiting for over an hour in an emergency, to go back to Chicago and
that they can try driving to WI to find an ER vet clinic next.
Taking the practice to that original kind of level of malevolence
behind the practice, as people who kill pets tend to move on to
killing people if they have not already, as also the original common
racial expression of hate being murder.
The county seat in fact does not view the practice as animal cruelty
either, and so creates the option to do that to people and animals,
who find out the hard way they are facing a malevolent social culture
that wants money, and otherwise could care less to the point of
killing their pets for starters.
What is the basis in the law theoretically for the option to refuse to
serve customers and in particular in an emergency and stalling an
animal in an emergency receiving vet care knowing that doing so can
kill the animal?
And what for local and county governments that do the same with the
tax paid public services they provide to their relationships?
Are they correct that the only law prohibiting the practices applies
to doing so explicitly as racial harassment?
And that otherwise the US has absolutely no law, much less regulatory
law, that outlaws any person entrapping customers into malicious
killing of their pets, brutal cruelty, and refusing to provide
usually, police protection from anything and harassment in
particular?
rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically finally made it
against the law to refuse to serve and to refuse to provide public
services on the basis of race.
Since 1964, however, civil rights hate in America has learned to be
deceptive and dishonest in finding ways to continue those practices
from the perspective of most of us.
Avoiding being explicit about the basis being the most common change
to the practices that were once loud and public or worse, where not a
sign over the water fountain or the door, about why the persons were
refusing to serve some of their customers.
Practioners claim that the refusing to serve customers and refusing to
provide the public services they provide to their relationships, is
not against the law unless persons do so for racial reasons.
Which in Northern IL in real actual cases of what its like for people
the area wants money from, to do business with Northern IL, seems to
be a common practice in Lake County in particular, where the county
seat in Waukegan does not view the practice as harassment or illegal.
To the point of actual cases of persons moving to the area lured with
fraud about the lower cost of living, to take a beloved family pet in
an emergency to the local ER veterinary care, to have the vet on duty
that night on the east side of the state in Lake, tell the pet owner
waiting for over an hour in an emergency, to go back to Chicago and
that they can try driving to WI to find an ER vet clinic next.
Taking the practice to that original kind of level of malevolence
behind the practice, as people who kill pets tend to move on to
killing people if they have not already, as also the original common
racial expression of hate being murder.
The county seat in fact does not view the practice as animal cruelty
either, and so creates the option to do that to people and animals,
who find out the hard way they are facing a malevolent social culture
that wants money, and otherwise could care less to the point of
killing their pets for starters.
What is the basis in the law theoretically for the option to refuse to
serve customers and in particular in an emergency and stalling an
animal in an emergency receiving vet care knowing that doing so can
kill the animal?
And what for local and county governments that do the same with the
tax paid public services they provide to their relationships?
Are they correct that the only law prohibiting the practices applies
to doing so explicitly as racial harassment?
And that otherwise the US has absolutely no law, much less regulatory
law, that outlaws any person entrapping customers into malicious
killing of their pets, brutal cruelty, and refusing to provide
usually, police protection from anything and harassment in
particular?