After you've answered the question I've repeatedly asked you, I could point out some contradictions in your post above. However I wouldn't want us to get sidetracked.
were black people harmed when businesses in the south "politely and reasonably" hung signs disallowing them from being customers?
kicking black people out of the store because of their skin color doesn't seem too peaceful, eh bobby?
I bet some of them had their feelings hurt. Also, racist practices weren't limited to "the south" , numb nuts.
So as the south became less racist they voted more Republican for president....while the openly racist Democrat legislators that opposed civil rights legislation did not switch parties. They continued voting on legislation as Democrat legislators.
but no one was denied access to food, clothing, or medicine that they my have needed? no one was forced to choose between less goods of inferior quality at higher prices? no harm whatsoever was done besides "hurt feelings"?
so a black person trying to buy stuff from a store is the one not being peaceful, rather than the racist store owner who is kicking him out based on his skin color?
first of all, civil rights was decided based on geographic lines. pretty much everyone from both parties in the south voted against it, and everyone from both parties in the north voted for it.
nazi punchers would receive their goods at a discount price at any store of mine.
Southern party lines.
There ya go. You would have to serve trump. Can't discriminate against orange, not allowed. It will make you like orange though.
nope. i reserve the right to refuse service to fascists too.
No.
Aw umad your narrative is false? U are.
You would serve Thomas Sowell lol. Your bigotry is showing loud.
what color is the sky? i just want to check since you don't seem to get how facts work, even when they are staring you in your three-toothed face.
