What does an irish and a hispanic have in common?

LJ, you did show what I stated earlier:

[quote="Your link"]

Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination based on any one of those characteristics. Other federal statutes, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, credit extension, public education, and access to public facilities. State laws also provide further protection against discrimination.WhiteKnight77

Again, this does not include private citizens or private groups or in Rawsavon's instance, Hooter's not hiring a man as a server in their restaurants (though Hooters cannot discriminate against anyone for any other job including managers, cooks and others who seek employment). The Mason's (private orginization) have the right to exclude anyone they wish based on sex, religion or race if they so desire.

Hooter's is not allowed to discriminate, however, his example has one major flaw in it. It's not discrimination if the individual is not able to fulfill the function of the job...and a male does not physically fulfill that criteria. That is not the same as discrimination. Technically. With respect to other positions the company can not discriminate. If I'm writing a screen play about a young black male youth...it's not discrimination to only cast for that part. Now if Hooter's wasn't a theme restaurant then they would not be allowed to hire only a specific image for one specific job. Sometimes being too PC means finding things that just aren't there.

So other than finding a specific job requirement where are these examples of the US government allowing discrimination?

This topic named the US as discriminating. And as a country the US has laws against discrimination. Period. LJS9502_basic

People in northern Ireland call the people from south of the border Mexicans. It that it?

They're both heavily dominated by Catholicism. cd_rom

I didn't say in the topic that the US discriminates I said that some individuals from irish descent discriminate against hispanics now. A discrimination that arises from individual racial prejudices mostly but that is common with immigrant populations. I just find it ironic that the irish were victims of the same kind of problems back then.kuraimen

They both were not originally from the US, they migrated to the US and they got discriminated and mistreated in the US for being immigrantskuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I didn't say in the topic that the US discriminates I said that some individuals from irish descent discriminate against hispanics now. A discrimination that arises from individual racial prejudices mostly but that is common with immigrant populations. I just find it ironic that the irish were victims of the same kind of problems back then.LJS9502_basic

They both were not originally from the US, they migrated to the US and they got discriminated and mistreated in the US for being immigrantskuraimen

The only difference is that many of those irish descendants are the ones doing the last thing to the hispanics right now.

That was what I said in the OP. Many does not equal all or the country.

The only difference is that many of those irish descendants are the ones doing the last thing to the hispanics right now.

That was what I said in the OP. Many does not equal all or the country.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

The only difference is that many of those irish descendants are the ones doing the last thing to the hispanics right now.

That was what I said in the OP. Many does not equal all or the country.

LJS9502_basic

and I came in here expecting a joke :(

..i hate this type of discriminations :x

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

The only difference is that many of those irish descendants are the ones doing the last thing to the hispanics right now.

That was what I said in the OP. Many does not equal all or the country.

kuraimen

and I came in here expecting a joke :(

..i hate this type of discriminations :x

Sandulf29

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And yet you still providing nothing of substance. Where is your proof that many of those of Irish descent are doing this? More like an opinion to me. Though FYI.....after generations in the US the people really aren't speaking for Ireland nor Irish in anything but family history.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I don't think that things like racial profiling exist in the US is a secret. Even the recent controversial immigration laws involved a great deal of racial profiling.kuraimen

As for comparing the US today with what it was like a long time ago.....that suggests to me you are unfamiliar with the laws and changes the US has in place. It's certainly grown. But then judging by your past posts...you aren't a fan of the US and I don't expect a balanced viewpoint.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yeah but Americans are Americans. I'm not getting where you're going with racial profiling. Anyway, it's a valid tool for law enforcement. If you are attacked by a white male.....it would be rather silly for the cops to stop females or those not white....wouldn't it? In the PC world...profiling is a dirty word but it saves valuable time in apprehending people if you're looking for those that fit a description. Obviously it would be just as silly to stop all white males if they don't fit the description....but it would be necessary to only look at that one race as opposed to all. As for immigration.....when cops stop people they ask for identification. I see nothing wrong with checking out anyone that does not have it. Be it a citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant. And if one is found to be illegal....they should be detained and proper action taken.

LJS9502_basic

As for comparing the US today with what it was like a long time ago.....that suggests to me you are unfamiliar with the laws and changes the US has in place. It's certainly grown. But then judging by your past posts...you aren't a fan of the US and I don't expect a balanced viewpoint.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Ok but that racial profiling can get out of hand like it shows on the link on my OP. An irish guy was accused and sentenced in large part just because he was irish. I don't think it is too far off to think that the same thing happens now since many people are prejudiced against hispanics and blacks. Are jails filled with black people because they are really guilty or is it a lot to do with racial profiling too? I just think people should put more into perspective what being an immigrant is like since their grandfathers and grandmothers were a lot like them.kuraimen

As for comparing the US today with what it was like a long time ago.....that suggests to me you are unfamiliar with the laws and changes the US has in place. It's certainly grown. But then judging by your past posts...you aren't a fan of the US and I don't expect a balanced viewpoint.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me TBH. While no court system is perfect....ours does require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. While there is no doubt sometimes innocent people can be convicted...it's not happening with the frequency with which you suggest. There is a reason a person is arrested to start with...

As for comparing the US today with what it was like a long time ago.....that suggests to me you are unfamiliar with the laws and changes the US has in place. It's certainly grown. But then judging by your past posts...you aren't a fan of the US and I don't expect a balanced viewpoint.

LJS9502_basic

Well I guess all the debates about immigration, the laws about immigration and news about immigration all over the place are all figments of a collective imagination then.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there is a problem with immigrants in the US, we see it everyday on the news and even here in OT. The american people will in the end decide how big this problem becomes and how they handle it I guess.kuraimen

Well I guess all the debates about immigration, the laws about immigration and news about immigration all over the place are all figments of a collective imagination then.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No there isn't. I have no idea what you watching.....and you have no specific examples....LJS9502_basic

Well I guess all the debates about immigration, the laws about immigration and news about immigration all over the place are all figments of a collective imagination then.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Well I guess all the debates about immigration, the laws about immigration and news about immigration all over the place are all figments of a collective imagination then.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Debates about immigration? I think you mean illegal immigration. Immigration that is illegal is well....illegal. Of course it's a problem. No one has any issues with legal immigration in this country.....of any nationality.

LJS9502_basic

Well many irish back then were escaping bad conditions in their country and they came to the US without many problems. It is not so easy anymore but many of these people today are suffering from very similar problems. If the laws back then were as harsh as today I'm sure many of those irish would have been deemed "illegal" too.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Well they call it most the immigration debate in the US because between the things they dicuss is changing the policies on how to receive immigrants legally too or how to convert illegal immigrants to legality. Either way there IS an immigration problem legal or illegal and it's in all headlines. This environment creates tensions between populations and things like racial profiling and discrimination are more common. Similar to what happened with the irish people back then.kuraimen

Well many irish back then were escaping bad conditions in their country and they came to the US without many problems. It is not so easy anymore but many of these people today are suffering from very similar problems. If the laws back then were as harsh as today I'm sure many of those irish would have been deemed "illegal" too.

No country can sustain unlimited growth and survive. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No country can sustain unlimited growth and survive. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No country can sustain unlimited growth and survive. LJS9502_basic

The US was founded by immigrants, sir.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Again, this does not include private citizens or private groups or in Rawsavon's instance, Hooter's not hiring a man as a server in their restaurants (though Hooters cannot discriminate against anyone for any other job including managers, cooks and others who seek employment). The Mason's (private orginization) have the right to exclude anyone they wish based on sex, religion or race if they so desire.

LJS9502_basic

Hooter's is not allowed to discriminate, however, his example has one major flaw in it. It's not discrimination if the individual is not able to fulfill the function of the job...and a male does not physically fulfill that criteria. That is not the same as discrimination. Technically. With respect to other positions the company can not discriminate. If I'm writing a screen play about a young black male youth...it's not discrimination to only cast for that part. Now if Hooter's wasn't a theme restaurant then they would not be allowed to hire only a specific image for one specific job. Sometimes being too PC means finding things that just aren't there.

So other than finding a specific job requirement where are these examples of the US government allowing discrimination?

You stated that discrimination is illegal in your very first post:

Way to generalize. Discrimination is illegal in the US by the way.LJS9502_basic

As you have been told, that is a blanket statement and is a generalization. Others have repeatedly shown you (and as seen in the embolden example above), discrimination is not completely outlawed in the US. A private citizen doesn't have to sell a TV to a Hispanic person if they choose not to. They can hold out for a white woman to come by and buy it. Is that discrimination? Yes. Is it legal? Again, yes. Now if that same person were a manager at an apartment complex, they could not tell a Hispanic person that they could not rent an apartment while only letting a black man rent. That would be illegal under the law.

As you have been told, that is a blanket statement and is a generalization. Others have repeatedly shown you (and as seen in the embolden example above), discrimination is not completely outlawed in the US. I don't have to sell my TV to a Hispanic person if I choose not to. I can hold out for a white woman to come by and buy it from me. Is that discrimination? Yes. Is it legal? Again, yes. Now if I were an manager at an apartment complex, I could not tell a Hispanic person that they could not rent an apartment while only letting a black man rent. That would be illegal under the law.

WhiteKnight77

Yes I've been told someone's opinion. That doesn't change the facts. It's illegal to discriminate in the US. And no one that dissented presented any facts to the contrary. One TV? Not that you can discriminate based on ethnicity but it would be hard to prove. If you sold TVs and refused to ever sell to Hispanic people....you'd be in violation. It's all about the evidence. I'm not getting this idea that individuals and groups don't matter. Who employs people? Individuals and groups.

LJS9502_basic

The Masons are a group. They are not hiring anyone, but people petition to join them. They are voted on as to who joins and who doesn't. The term blackballed comes from the way they vote. If there is a black ball, you are not allowed to join. They do not have to allow anyone that they do not want to join. They are freely allowed to discriminate as they are a private organization.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Yes I've been told someone's opinion. That doesn't change the facts. It's illegal to discriminate in the US. And no one that dissented presented any facts to the contrary. One TV? Not that you can discriminate based on ethnicity but it would be hard to prove. If you sold TVs and refused to ever sell to Hispanic people....you'd be in violation. It's all about the evidence. I'm not getting this idea that individuals and groups don't matter. Who employs people? Individuals and groups.

WhiteKnight77

The Masons are a group. They are not hiring anyone, but people petition to join them. They are voted on as to who joins and who doesn't. The term blackballed comes from the way they vote. If there is a black ball, you are not allowed to join. They do not have to allow anyone that they do not want to join. They are freely allowed to discriminate as they are a private organization.

Mensa member sues Masonic lodge for discrimination

On the first and third Monday of every month except in summer months when only one Monday will do in an old building on a downtown street wanting for bustle, the Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of Wellsburg Lodge No. 2 meet. Members only, and only men.

Then there was the matter of race. The Ancient, Free and Accepted lodges in West Virginia not only have no black members, they maintain no contact with the state's separate and predominantly black Masonic fraternities, called Prince Hall lodges. It's not just nonrecognition, Mr. Haas says with frustration. It's hostility.Mensa member sues Masonic lodge for discrimination

To follow up, Jury sides with Grand Lodge in Mason expulsion case.

As seen in the above article, the Masons do discriminate and it is entirely legal. Now, things do change. Have I met any black Mason in my Pop's lodge or do the allow them? I don't know if they allow them, but I don't ever recall meeting any one of a different race. One can speculate whether or not they do or do not allow them or have any members of a different race.

To follow up, Jury sides with Grand Lodge in Mason expulsion case.

As seen in the above article, the Masons do discriminate and it is entirely legal. Now, things do change. Have I met any black Mason in my Pop's lodge or do the allow them? I don't know if they allow them, but I don't ever recall meeting any one of a different race. One can speculate whether or not they do or do not allow them or have any members of a different race.

WhiteKnight77

I read the second link. The court case was not a discrimination case. It was about Haas and his actions so I don't think we can make the conclusion that the court said discrimination was legal. They weren't deciding that case.

They both think your view on criminal hackers is totally ludicrous?

Thats not a funny joke... I was at least expecting a bar being involved, and a priest maybe... :(

Thats not a funny joke... I was at least expecting a bar being involved, and a priest maybe... :(

KamuiFei

[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

Thats not a funny joke... I was at least expecting a bar being involved, and a priest maybe... :(

LJS9502_basic

Exactly! :x This thread disappoints... *leaves thread* :P

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

To follow up, Jury sides with Grand Lodge in Mason expulsion case.

As seen in the above article, the Masons do discriminate and it is entirely legal. Now, things do change. Have I met any black Mason in my Pop's lodge or do the allow them? I don't know if they allow them, but I don't ever recall meeting any one of a different race. One can speculate whether or not they do or do not allow them or have any members of a different race.

LJS9502_basic

I read the second link. The court case was not a discrimination case. It was about Haas and his actions so I don't think we can make the conclusion that the court said discrimination was legal. They weren't deciding that case.

Now we know why you have failed to understand what is being stated. Read the quote from the first link, especially the embolden parts. The second part of the quote deals with races, even if not embolden.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

To follow up, Jury sides with Grand Lodge in Mason expulsion case.

As seen in the above article, the Masons do discriminate and it is entirely legal. Now, things do change. Have I met any black Mason in my Pop's lodge or do the allow them? I don't know if they allow them, but I don't ever recall meeting any one of a different race. One can speculate whether or not they do or do not allow them or have any members of a different race.

WhiteKnight77

I read the second link. The court case was not a discrimination case. It was about Haas and his actions so I don't think we can make the conclusion that the court said discrimination was legal. They weren't deciding that case.

Now we know why you have failed to understand what is being stated. Read the quote from the first link, especially the embolden parts. The second part of the quote deals with races, even if not embolden.

The case was over Haas' expulsion from the Lodge. Not the Lodge charged with discrimination. So how did you get that idea from the case?

And you have not defended the idea that individuals and groups make up employment. That was your stance...right? Individuals and groups are not subject to discrimination laws? Who are the employers if not individuals and groups?

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

I read the second link. The court case was not a discrimination case. It was about Haas and his actions so I don't think we can make the conclusion that the court said discrimination was legal. They weren't deciding that case.

LJS9502_basic

Now we know why you have failed to understand what is being stated. Read the quote from the first link, especially the embolden parts. The second part of the quote deals with races, even if not embolden.

The case was over Haas' expulsion from the Lodge. Not the Lodge charged with discrimination. So how did you get that idea from the case?

And you have not defended the idea that individuals and groups make up employment. That was your stance...right? Individuals and groups are not subject to discrimination laws? Who are the employers if not individuals and groups?

You avered that discrimination is illegal. I, along with others have avered that it is legal. I personally avered that it is legal as to private organizations and the first link I provided shows that there is discrimination within the Freemasons, which you totally have failed to recognize.

You avered that discrimination is illegal. I, along with others have avered that it is legal. I personally avered that it is legal as to private organizations and the first link I provided shows that there is discrimination within the Freemasons, which you totally have failed to recognize.

WhiteKnight77

As for you examples...you have one article about a former free mason suing his Lodge. They reported his claims of discrimination. Okay....then we have the actual outcome of the trial. The trial was brought by Haas for his expulsion from the Lodge. The court found that Haas was legally expelled and thus could not be awarded any money. The court DID not hear a case against the Lodge about discrimination. While Haas does allege it happens....and he's probably correct....the court was not presented with a discrimination case. They were presented with Haas' expulsion case. You cannot add 2 + 2 together and get 5. Court cases are very specific in nature and decide exactly the case presented to them. Now if more evidence surfaces about discrimination with the Masons.....and someone presses the case...the case can be heard. But what you presented was NOT a discrimination court case.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

You avered that discrimination is illegal. I, along with others have avered that it is legal. I personally avered that it is legal as to private organizations and the first link I provided shows that there is discrimination within the Freemasons, which you totally have failed to recognize.

LJS9502_basic

As for you examples...you have one article about a former free mason suing his Lodge. They reported his claims of discrimination. Okay....then we have the actual outcome of the trial. The trial was brought by Haas for his expulsion from the Lodge. The court found that Haas was legally expelled and thus could not be awarded any money. The court DID not hear a case against the Lodge about discrimination. While Haas does allege it happens....and he's probably correct....the court was not presented with a discrimination case. They were presented with Haas' expulsion case. You cannot add 2 + 2 together and get 5. Court cases are very specific in nature and decide exactly the case presented to them. Now if more evidence surfaces about discrimination with the Masons.....and someone presses the case...the case can be heard. But what you presented was NOT a discrimination court case.

Reread this:

Mensa member sues Masonic lodge for discrimination

On the first and third Monday of every month except in summer months when only one Monday will do in an old building on a downtown street wanting for bustle, the Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of Wellsburg Lodge No. 2 meet. Members only, and only men.

Then there was the matter of race. The Ancient, Free and Accepted lodges in West Virginia not only have no black members, they maintain no contact with the state's separate and predominantly black Masonic fraternities, called Prince Hall lodges. It's not just nonrecognition, Mr. Haas says with frustration. It's hostility.Mensa member sues Masonic lodge for discrimination

While the case was not about discrimination, the above shows that discrimination is practiced by said group and legally.

While the case was not about discrimination, the above shows that discrimination is practiced by said group and legally.

WhiteKnight77

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (U.S. 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey anti-discrimination law that required the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to admit an openly gay man as a scoutmaster violated the Boy Scouts' FIRST AMENDMENT right of expressive association.

The trial court dismissed his suit, ruling that the BSA had consistently excluded any self-declared homosexuals. The court found that homosexuality, from a Biblical and historical perspective, was both morally wrong and criminal. The BSA had implicitly subscribed to this historical view since its inception, the court said. The LAD did not apply in Dale's case because the BSA was not a place of public accommodation and because the BSA, as a private association, could not be compelled to accept a gay scoutmaster because this would violate the FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Linked Article

Discrimination at it's finest and completely legal.

LJ, you keep arguing that discrimination is illegal, yet it happens daily by all sorts of private groups and associations everywhere. It is business and public entities that cannot discriminate.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (U.S. 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey anti-discrimination law that required the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to admit an openly gay man as a scoutmaster violated the Boy Scouts' FIRST AMENDMENT right of expressive association.

The trial court dismissed his suit, ruling that the BSA had consistently excluded any self-declared homosexuals. The court found that homosexuality, from a Biblical and historical perspective, was both morally wrong and criminal. The BSA had implicitly subscribed to this historical view since its inception, the court said. The LAD did not apply in Dale's case because the BSA was not a place of public accommodation and because the BSA, as a private association, could not be compelled to accept a gay scoutmaster because this would violate the FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Discrimination at it's finest and completely legal.

LJ, you keep arguing that discrimination is illegal, yet it happens daily by all sorts of private groups and associations everywhere. It is business and public entities that cannot discriminate.

WhiteKnight77

The LAD did not apply in Dale's case because the BSA was not a place of public accommodation and because the BSA, as a private association,

So we come back to which term we are using when we mention discrimination in regard to legality. I have stated from the beginning of this argument that I was going with legal definitiions. Private clubs on the other hand would be dangerous to apply legality toward. Since they are "social" situations and not housing, employment, etc. I'd imagine if your Mason's case came to trial it might have the same outcome TBH. The reason for the distinction is the definition of a club. I could create a club solely allowing Cure fans as members. You as a BonJovi fan would not be welcome. Now you could call for discrimination but that wouldn't be true. You would not be eligible since the main requirement is missing. And the courts are reluctant, thankfully, to tell people who they have to associate with. That is not discrimination though. Do you discriminate when you select your friends? No. You pick those most like you to associate with

Personally, I find diversity quite interesting and I don't understand one's need to avoid it. I consider those individuals close minded....but it is their right to choose their friends.

I recommend finding my link about discrimination and reading it. It's back there somewhere. Discrimination is illegal. However, the courts cannot infringe on the rights of others by forcing them to socialize with people they choose not to do so. So discrimination ends when rights are conflicted with. However....that still does not make discrimination legal. It means some instances are not considered discrimination because they come down to social choice. Do you see the difference between that and a small business owner that doesn't employ x group verses not socializing with them?

I think that is the confusion in this thread. Personal social habits are being considered discrimination. In fact read the last sentence of your quote...it sums up the difference we're talking about nicely.

*facepalms at the argument going on in this thread*

Do laws exist against discrimination? Yes or no. Actually I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring up the Boy Scouts. I was waiting. Nonethless, the reason they dismissed the case was as such....

The LAD did not apply in Dale's case because the BSA was not a place of public accommodation and because the BSA, as a private association,

So we come back to which term we are using when we mention discrimination in regard to legality. I have stated from the beginning of this argument that I was going with legal definitiions. Private clubs on the other hand would be dangerous to apply legality toward. Since they are "social" situations and not housing, employment, etc. I'd imagine if your Mason's case came to trial it might have the same outcome TBH. The reason for the distinction is the definition of a club. I could create a club solely allowing Cure fans as members. You as a BonJovi fan would not be welcome. Now you could call for discrimination but that wouldn't be true. You would not be eligible since the main requirement is missing. And the courts are reluctant, thankfully, to tell people who they have to associate with. That is not discrimination though. Do you discriminate when you select your friends? No. You pick those most like you to associate with

Personally, I find diversity quite interesting and I don't understand one's need to avoid it. I consider those individuals close minded....but it is their right to choose their friends.

I recommend finding my link about discrimination and reading it. It's back there somewhere. Discrimination is illegal. However, the courts cannot infringe on the rights of others by forcing them to socialize with people they choose not to do so. So discrimination ends when rights are conflicted with. However....that still does not make discrimination legal. It means some instances are not considered discrimination because they come down to social choice. Do you see the difference between that and a small business owner that doesn't employ x group verses not socializing with them?

I think that is the confusion in this thread. Personal social habits are being considered discrimination. In fact read the last sentence of your quote...it sums up the difference we're talking about nicely.

LJS9502_basic

As your link shows and I quoted:

Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discriminationbased on any one of those characteristics. Other federal statutes, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, credit extension, public education, and access topublic facilities. State laws also provide further protection against discrimination.Your link

This as I have avered time and again, even before you linked to it, only pertains to business and public entities. As you finally noted, private clubs, organizations and such (Masons, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts et. al.) have the right to choose whom they associate with according to the First Amendment. Choosing who you wish to associate with is discrimination and is entirely legal. Whether you see it or not, you finally agree with what has been said by various people in this thread.

A lot, considering that the ancestors of the Irish came from Spain.

Celtic culture is one of the principle influences on hispanic culture. Bagpipes, funny kicking dances, apple cider, a habit of piling stones about, a wool-based economy (and all the sheep that comes with it), a love of wine and ale, and an ancient sailing tradition characterize a great many of the people that live on the Atlantic coast from Portugal to Belgium and in the British Isles. Everyone that lives where I just pointed out knows what I'm talking about unless they're stuck in a strictly modern urban setting and never venture into the countryside.

Galicia, Asturias, and Cantabria are probably the most Celtic of the Spanish regions, although Celtic influence stretches much further to the south, especially into wool production centers of la Mancha

As your link shows and I quoted:

[quote="Your link"]

Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discriminationbased on any one of those characteristics. Other federal statutes, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, credit extension, public education, and access topublic facilities. State laws also provide further protection against discrimination.WhiteKnight77

This as I have avered time and again, even before you linked to it, only pertains to business and public entities. As you finally noted, private clubs, organizations and such (Masons, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts et. al.) have the right to choose whom they associate with according to the First Amendment. Choosing who you wish to associate with is discrimination and is entirely legal. Whether you see it or not, you finally agree with what has been said by various people in this thread.