Why not, multiple wives are historically and biblically correct and if you got enough change to get good looking wives a lot of fun too (I'm guessing). But on the other hand can you imagine going through 2 or 3 divorces in the same year :eek: .
The rightie argument for "white only" businesses is that "blacks" can simply go somewhere else. And the SC does have an opinion, you just read it.
Discrimination cannot be selective and be of any real value to society, yet selective discrimination is the essence of radical leftism. Can't discriminate against a black student applicant, but it's OK to discriminate against a white student. Free speech for all, except for a conservative speaking at a left leaning college, then it's perfectly OK to shout them down. Can't profile or catagorize people to fit a certain idelogy, except for white males. Perfectly OK to profile and catagorize them. Selective discrimination is a core value of radical leftism. It is the source of their power. All are certainly not equal in their opinion, and all you need for proof of that is to watch what they actually do, which will always run counter their spoken rhetoric. Your argument can be that the radical right is full of shit too. You'd be correct. So all we really have to debate is which side stinks more on any given day. And that is what keeps message boards, the media, and politics in general alive and well.
The discrimination here is for one student, not against another, ceteris paribus. The school wants a more diverse student body, and faced with two equally qualified (from a list of attributes) applicants used another attribute to break the tie.
It wasn't a tie, dumbass. The white student was superior and passed over in favor of a less deserving black student. You should try to quit showing us how stupid you are, Rectum.
Once again you show your ignorance about God and Biblical teaching. http://www.openbible.info/topics/monogamy
The problem with the Supreme Court isn't that it favors blacks or homos. The problem is that it is substituting its own policy preferences for those of our elected representatives, or in the case of California, the state's voters as a whole. Overruling a duly enacted law should be seen as a huge step, as it is a direct infringement of Balance of Powers. It is justified only when there is a clearcut violation of the Constitution. In this case, we see instead a rather obvious example of the Court substituting its judgment for that of Congress and the President who signed the law, Bill clinton as it happens. When the Court appears to base its rulings on media and political pressure or the fashions of the day instead of the Constitution, it loses legitimacy and respect. That well has pretty much run dry for the Roberts court after these cases and the Obamacare ruling.
So diversity trumps discrimination? Interesting. I'm not sure that's how the law reads though. Again, the left is very selective where they will apply their high minded idealogy. As AA just stated, the SC is now bending to favor political agenda rather than uphold the law. That's mob rule, which is fine until the mob gets a hard on for you.