Dallas GOP Politician to Kids: Marry White or Else

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, seven said:

Slorch, no one is shocked that you support the racist in this ordeal. 

I don’t support his motivations.

I disagree with the government ‘interpreting’ them.

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

William Rice put it in his will that no blacks would ever be admitted to Rice Institute and that got overturned.

He also put it in there that the school would take on no debt, and that was also junked, more recently than the racist proviso. And with less desirable results. 

[Guest]

Anyone getting bent out of shape to defend this guys rights is putting in more energy and effort than likely the original racist guy himself. The answer here is easy, just hold on to your cash with an informal understanding/trust and let your kid know, you stray from my ideals and desires, you get left out...like every other miserable wealthy miser does with their younger generations.

[woohorn 1,131]

Wouldn't this pit kid against kid?

Kid 1 hires smoking hot racially different honeypot to get kid 2 kicked outta will.

[Guest]

@ oatmeal raisn

Lolz at your allegations in the final sentence.

Maybe you should lobby for equal protection and standard distribution of assets according to YOUR desires, as opposed to that of the individual.

 

Fuck them for dying with any assets to begin with.

Edited May 21, 2018 by slorch

[DDD Dad 14,339]

This story is all over my neighborhood.  His son (the one dating the girl of Vietnamese descent) has been friends with my daughter (no pics) since kindergarten.  Not surprised in the least by this; surprised it took so long to come out.

I feel bad for the son (and daughter).  His wife is a complete doormat.  Completely disfunctional situation.

[wildcat09 29,355]

18 minutes ago, slorch said:

@ oatmeal raisn

Lolz at your allegations in the final sentence.

Maybe you should lobby for equal protection and standard distribution of assets according to YOUR desires, as opposed to that of the individual.

 

Fuck them for dying with any assets to begin with.

Why should YOUR desires dictate what the government does with your assets when you're dead?

[Guest]

The gov’t doesn’t own my assets.

 

they are just executing a legal document.

 

We kinda disliked that shit way back when...enough to pose a rebellious threat to the crown.

 

again, I find it odd as hell how some of y’all are cozying up so deep in the bosom of gov’t. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by slorch

[wildcat09 29,355]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

The gov’t doesn’t own my assets.

 

they are just executing a legal document.

 

We kinda disliked that shit way back when...enough to pose a rebellious threat to the crown.

 

again, I find it odd as hell how some of y’all are cozying up so deep in the bosom of gov’t. 

Actually, the system you are supporting is a somewhat limited version of the aristocratic system our founders despised and fought against. I haven't stated my position yet in this thread, so I'm not "cozying up" to the bosom of government, but you clearly don't have a good grasp of the concepts underlying private property ownership nor the historical problems with permitting deadhand control of property.

You don't own anything when you're dead. When you die, to the extent you leave an estate, it is the living, through their representatives in government, that must determine what to do with those assets. For various reasons, some of which are good, every state has decided to permit the decedent great leeway in dictating how the government should dispose of his or her estate. But that has little to do with whether you have a right to devise property (or whether others have a right to inherit or be devised property), and a state could change its mind tomorrow and choose a new method of disposing of decedents' estates.

There are valid arguments in support of our current system, but "fuck you it's mine and I get to say what happens to it" isn't one of the better ones. Personally, I think everyone should be permitted to leave for their family an amount somewhat reasonably in excess of whatever might be necessary to pay for food, shelter, healthcare, and education, but that there's really no particularly good reason to permit some stupid failson like Donald Trump Jr. (or any of the rich kids of instagram) to receive hundreds of millions of dollars when his dad dies, and many good reasons not to, such as the concentration of wealth in a new aristocratic class composed of dipshits who have no concept of honest work and who will spend their lives further rigging the system to take even more from what little the lower classes still have. 

[Brisketexan 105,158]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

Fuck it.  I’ll just sell it all and donate to Trump.

 

Personally, if I had a kid who strayed from our beliefs and I certainly don’t mean race related; I’d just straight up cut them out of the will.  No provisions, no interpretation.  Just a “ Hey you knew what the score was and you ignored it.  Now we ignore you.”  It would have to be something agregious like murder or some shit towards the family.  I’d say the odds of my younger son marrying a non-white woman are about 3-1 or so, considering his dating history.  

I’ve zero issue with that and my feelings on the subject are not why I objected to the subject of the thread.  I just feel the gov’t shouldn’t have a say.  Within existing laws, execute the will.  IDGAF about anyone’s butt getting hurt.

 

1 hour ago, slorch said:

I don’t support his motivations.

I disagree with the government ‘interpreting’ them.

 

 

26 minutes ago, slorch said:

The gov’t doesn’t own my assets.

 

they are just executing a legal document.

 

We kinda disliked that shit way back when...enough to pose a rebellious threat to the crown.

 

again, I find it odd as hell how some of y’all are cozying up so deep in the bosom of gov’t. 

Then don't invoke the power of the government -- remember, the courts are a branch of the government -- to enforce your desires.

Easy peasy.  Write a non-binding will, trust, contract, etc.  And if the other folks don't comply, you can enforce it through other means, outside the courts.  Now, if you use a gun, threat of violence, etc., you'll end up in the courts anyway, but hey, it's your call.

You can't enforce a contract for the delivery of cocaine -- it would violate public policy.

You can't enforce a contract for murder -- it would violate public policy.

You can't enforce a contract for prostitution -- it would violate public policy.

You can't enforce a deed restriction that prohibits a black person from later buying your property -- it would violate public policy.

You can HAVE all of those contracts.  You just can't use the power of a the government -- via a court, that issues orders backed up by the power of the State -- to enforce them.  You want the gov't to stay out of your business?  Then don't use mechanisms that call on the power of the government to enforce them.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

Fuck it.  I’ll just sell it all and donate to Trump.

 

Personally, if I had a kid who strayed from our beliefs and I certainly don’t mean race related; I’d just straight up cut them out of the will.  No provisions, no interpretation.  Just a “ Hey you knew what the score was and you ignored it.  Now we ignore you.”  It would have to be something agregious like murder or some shit towards the family.  I’d say the odds of my younger son marrying a non-white woman are about 3-1 or so, considering his dating history.  

I’ve zero issue with that and my feelings on the subject are not why I objected to the subject of the thread.  I just feel the gov’t shouldn’t have a say.  Within existing laws, execute the will.  IDGAF about anyone’s butt getting hurt.

How Christian of you to abandon a child because he doesn't believe the same way as you do.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

How Christian of you to abandon a child because he doesn't believe the same way as you do.

Yeah.  Fuck you and the guilt trip.  

There are some showstoppers for me, regardless of faith.  Crimes against humanity would be one. Joining AlQaeda or some shit wouldn’t exactly work for me either.  Raping someone or abusing kids would be a no-go.

 

sorry.  My shit ain’t equal opportunity access and damned sure isn’t guaranteed.  Fly your shit right and bring honor to your name.  Follow Momma’s and my example and you’re pretty safe. You wanna be rebel and go against our values, then you’re gonna miss out on the $.50 we split between the two of ya( 2 sons.). This must be earth shattering news right?  I should just endorse whatever behavior in which they engage because we share the same bloodline, right?

 

No fucking way.

Edited May 21, 2018 by slorch

[safe sex 11,735]

You seem stressed.

[Tuco 5,076]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

 Follow Momma’s and my example and you’re pretty safe.

Could you imagine what a fucked up world it would be if kids did that consistently.  Generation to generation, following the basic moral code and ethics paradigm that their parents had. Slavery, genocide, all the evils from the past, just cascading from one generation to the next, all under the mantra of "respect your father."  (We wouldn't really need to worry about what the women think.)  

But, heh slorch, I'm sure our generation has reached the pinnacle of morality.  No reason to have the next generation deviate.

[safe sex 11,735]

Racism was solved in the 60s after all, right?

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

20 minutes ago, slorch said:

Yeah.  Fuck you and the guilt trip.  

There are some showstoppers for me, regardless of faith.  Crimes against humanity would be one. Joining AlQaeda or some shit wouldn’t exactly work for me either.  Raping someone or abusing kids would be a no-go.

 

sorry.  My shit ain’t equal opportunity access and damned sure isn’t guaranteed.  Fly your shit right and bring honor to your name.  Follow Momma’s and my example and you’re pretty safe. You wanna be rebel and go against our values, then you’re gonna miss out on the $.50 we split between the two of ya( 2 sons.). This must be earth shattering news right?  I should just endorse whatever behavior in which they engage because we share the same bloodline, right?

 

No fucking way.

Ok bro, that's really a far cry from "strayed from your beliefs" so maybe make yourself fucking clearer next time.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Could you imagine what a fucked up world it would be if kids did that consistently.  Generation to generation, following the basic moral code and ethics paradigm that their parents had. Slavery, genocide, all the evils from the past, just cascading from one generation to the next, all under the mantra of "respect your father."  (We wouldn't really need to worry about what the women think.)  

But, heh slorch, I'm sure our generation has reached the pinnacle of morality.  No reason to have the next generation deviate.

What are you trying to say, that opposes to what I posted?

why do you assume our examples don’t include responsibility, commitment to family, hard work,  charity, and or active citizenship?

 

Nothing in there says the kids must absolutely espouse our core beliefs, although they do. Nothing in there says they must stay under our umbrella of ‘safety.’  And yeah, there are people pull that shit too.  We are not that way.

 

What part of ‘crimes against humanity’ confuses you?  Rape, murder, and all of those sordid trivial acts must be embraced, right?  Who the fuck am I to set such strict parameters for my heirs’ behavior...

Edited May 21, 2018 by slorch

[Brisketexan 105,158]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

What part of ‘crimes against humanity’ confuses you?  Rape, murder, and all of those sordid trivial acts must be embraced, right?  Who the fuck am I to set such strict parameters for my heirs’ behavior...

Some folks think "crimes against humanity" include....consorting with negroes and other lesser races.

See the OP.

Just an FYI.

[Tuco 5,076]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

What are you trying to say, that opposes to what I posted?

 

Nothing in there says the kids must absolutely espouse our core beliefs, although they do. Nothing in there says they must stay under our umbrella of ‘safety.’  And yeah, there are people pull that shit too.  We are not that way.

 

What part of ‘crimes against humanity’ confuses you?  Rape, murder, and all of those sordid trivial acts must be embraced, right?  Who the fuck am I to set such strict parameters for my heirs’ behavior...

I am saying that it is horrible advice to say "do what we did, and you'll be ok." Just because it works when they are six, doesn't mean it will when they are thirty.  And, more importantly, it shouldn't. 

As far as "what crimes against humanity" confuse me, I'm not confused.  You were confronted with legal opinions which roughly indicated the public good of the instructions will affect their enforceability.  You countered with the concept that you should be able to limit your offspring's access to your estate if they were child rapers, or something. You are either equating interracial marriage with child rape, or you just spewed whatever made you sound ethical while completely ignoring the reasoning for it not being enforceable.  To put it differently, if your will required them to be child rapers, do you think it would be enforceable.  While that sounds extreme, keep in mind that child marriage, including its consummation, is something that adhered to traditional family values in many cultures, not tailing too far behind "marry your own race."

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I am saying that it is horrible advice to say "do what we did, and you'll be ok." Just because it works when they are six, doesn't mean it will when they are thirty.  And, more importantly, it shouldn't. 

As far as "what crimes against humanity" confuse me, I'm not confused.  You were confronted with legal opinions which roughly indicated the public good of the instructions will affect their enforceability.  You countered with the concept that you should be able to limit your offspring's access to your estate if they were child rapers, or something. You are either equating interracial marriage with child rape, or you just spewed whatever made you sound ethical while completely ignoring the reasoning for it not being enforceable.  To put it differently, if your will required them to be child rapers, do you think it would be enforceable.  While that sounds extreme, keep in mind that child marriage, including its consummation, is something that adhered to traditional family values in many cultures, not tailing too far behind "marry your own race."

That’s not what I said.  Read it again.

 

The differentitation was made in response to Brisket’s post about requiring an unlawful act as a condition of inheritance.  At no time did I equate interacial marriage/ relations with said crimes.

 

Y’all are so ate up with pointing out someone else’s alleged flaws(Racist!) you’re incapable of an actual dialogue. J

[wildcat09 29,355]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

That’s not what I said.  Read it again.

 

The differentitation was made in response to Brisket’s post about requiring an unlawful act as a condition of inheritance.  At no time did I equate interacial marriage/ relations with said crimes.

 

Y’all are so ate up with pointing out someone else’s alleged flaws(Racist!) you’re incapable of an actual dialogue. J

What you don't get is that you have actually agreed with us that the government is allowed to draw the line on what sorts of conditions it will and won't enforce. You don't even understand the import of what you're arguing, which makes it impossible to have a dialogue with you.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

Let's look at this guy's views and how it could potentially affect his role as an elected leader.

• Vic Cunningham denied harboring racial bigotry
• “I strongly support traditional family values,” Cunningham said. “If you marry a person of the opposite sex that’s Caucasian, that’s Christian, they will get a distribution.”
• He said he has accepted his son’s relationship with a woman of Vietnamese origin, though he said he couldn't change the terms of his trust.

I don't see how someone, who proudly espouses the view that traditional family values equate to only marrying within your race, could fairly represent non-caucasian constituents.   Reminds me of the KKK politician from O Brother Where Art Thou. "Miscegenation!"

As far as who he wants to leave his money, that's up to him.  If I were his son and the sole reason he was written out of the will is because of the wife's race, I would tell my dad to f-off.  And be better off kicking him and mom out of my life.   And for that guy's info, he can only control his money for so long after his death.  If the other kids (assuming he has some) want to give their brother and his Asian wife a fair share, I don't see how neither he (as a dead person) or even the executor can really stop it.  Would he put in a rule that attempting to do so would invalidate their share?  As I type that, this sounds like the type of guy that would go out of his way to ensure his life's work doesn't benefit any non-white person.

[Sawbonz 27,578]

Why can't he change the terms of the trust?

[Kringelbert Fishtybuns 943]

because of his traditional family values

[Sawbonz 27,578]

Quote

Dallas County Commissioners Court Precinct 2 deserves better than the candidates in this runoff.

Hahaha

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2018/05/18/withdraw-vickers-cunninghamrecommendation-gop-runoff-dallas-county-commissioners-court-precinct-2

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Reminds me of the KKK politician from O Brother Where Art Thou. "Miscegenation!"

Is you is or is you ain't my constituency?!

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

Does this guy have a legitimate chance of winning the general election, or is this one of those situation that the other party has a continued lock on a elected office which leads to crazy candidates from the other side?

[DDD Dad 14,339]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Does this guy have a legitimate chance of winning the general election, or is this one of those situation that the other party has a continued lock on a elected office which leads to crazy candidates from the other side?

It's the sole republican seat on the county commission.  All of the others have gone Democrat over the last 10-15 years.

So, yes he has a chance of winning the general but much less so now than in the past.  Of course this story won't help him.  He might not make it out of the primary, although he was the odds on favorite prior to Friday.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It's the sole republican seat on the county commission.  All of the others have gone Democrat over the last 10-15 years.

So, yes he has a chance of winning the general but much less so now than in the past.  Of course this story won't help him.  He might not make it out of the primary, although he was the odds on favorite prior to Friday.

gotcha.  If the county has partisan elections and straight ticket voting, then I assume he has a decent chance to win.

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

Is Slorch really arguing in favor of race-based restrictive covenants?  I mean, shit--props for having the courage to take an unpopular position, but damn, man.

[DDD Dad 14,339]

SIAP

 

 

[relapse98 634]

On 5/18/2018 at 5:50 PM, Ghost of LL said:

One of those points is marriage, but only if the marriage is to a white, straight Christian.

That's just good science. Everyone knows once you go black... you never go back.

[F250 28,784]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is Slorch really arguing in favor of race-based restrictive covenants?  I mean, shit--props for having the courage to take an unpopular position, but damn, man.

No, he is just writing a critique of Thomas Jefferson's letter to Madison concerning the idea that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living".

[Tuco 5,076]

49 minutes ago, slorch said:

That’s not what I said.  Read it again.

 

The differentitation was made in response to Brisket’s post about requiring an unlawful act as a condition of inheritance.  At no time did I equate interacial marriage/ relations with said crimes.

 

Y’all are so ate up with pointing out someone else’s alleged flaws(Racist!) you’re incapable of an actual dialogue. J

I haven't called you a racist, so you can stop playing the persecuted white male Christian martyr card.

What I responded to was a great snippet of the flawed conservative thought process.  "Follow Momma’s and my example and you’re pretty safe."  Nope.  It's one of those things that seems like it makes sense when you look at it up close, but put it in context, and it is absolutely, completely, fucking wrong.  Society will progress. What you and "momma" are doing today will look absolutely barbaric in two hundred years.  Same with me and my wife.  We are flawed in ways we don't understand.  That's not to say we shouldn't be primary role models.  Obviously we are.  But kids should definitely challenge our beliefs against their own logic and values. 

So, that was what I was initially responding to.  I then also brought up that your defense of the racist clause was based on flawed logic.  I didn't think it deserved much of a response, so I didn't provide one until you asked me. 

As far as the concept of the supremacy of the dead's property rights, I think it is an interesting topic.  I recall there was some guy from Georgia who forbad his property from every being sold to someone named "Sherman." I don't think that held up.  A more interesting case was detailed in a documentary called "The Art of Steal."  Short summary of that is a rich doctor collected an amazing collection of turn of the century art ("181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 60 Matisses, 44 Picassos, and 14 Modiglianis.") and willed/trust/whatevered it to remain in small museum with limited viewings in rural Pennsylvania. It was eventually overridden (or loopholed to death) and the collection was moved to Philly.  I can see being sympathetic to the dead man's cause.  But, hypothetically, what if he had ordered they were buried?  Or burned?  I think property rights are a necessary element of capitalism, and capitalism is a great vehicle for moving society forward.  I don't see property rights, in and of themselves, to be of such moral importance that they should remain supreme in the face of other factors. 

[Gil Bang 25,975]

Yeah...I'm willing to bet that Slorch's grampa, great grampa, or great great grandpa probably smacked the shit out of the wife when she got mouthy.

It was "right" then.  Not so much now. 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is Slorch really arguing in favor of race-based restrictive covenants?  I mean, shit--props for having the courage to take an unpopular position, but damn, man.

The right to do so in a will or trust?  Yes. 

Do I agree with their reasoning?  Absolutely not. 

 

Liberty is weird that way. Eh?  We don't have to have a consensus for the individual to exercise their rights. 

[Brisketexan 105,158]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

The right to do so in a will or trust?  Yes. 

Do I agree with their reasoning?  Absolutely not. 

 

Liberty is weird that way. Eh?  We don't have to have a consensus for the individual to exercise their rights. 

A question you have YET to answer: do you get to use the government (the courts) to enforce those provisions?

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

Just now, slorch said:

The right to do so in a will or trust?  Yes. 

Do I agree with their reasoning?  Absolutely not. 

 

Liberty is weird that way. Eh?  We don't have to have a consensus for the individual to exercise their rights. 

You're advocating something more than that--you're asking for state sanction of such a provision in a trust through court enforcement.  And sorry, but no--the state has a say in what agreements it will and will not enforce, and has going back to The Highwayman's Case in 1725.

[Sawbonz 27,578]

The bastards hung him that spring 

but he is still alive so I’m not sure that applies here

[Gil Bang 25,975]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The bastards hung him that spring 

but he is still alive so I’m not sure that applies here

Spring of '25 IIRC

[JBJ 3,655]

In this hypothetical, the beneficiaries of the estate are suing the executor / beneficiaries of the trust?  

It seems as long as the disbursement isn't housing or tuition, the courts can enforce it.  Which in my mind means they should enforce it.

I don't think the beneficiaries of the trust would successfully sue the executor.

Edited May 22, 2018 by JBJ

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A question you have YET to answer: do you get to use the government (the courts) to enforce those provisions?

Enforce?

 

Fuck, I guess I'll just execute all of my heirs but my favorites. 

 

So it's the court's job to make sure my will is executed, right? They shouldn't have any say on what the parameters are, as long as they are not illegal, correct?

I don't mean unpalatable or fucked up, I mean illegal  

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,158]

14 minutes ago, slorch said:

Enforce?

 

Fuck, I guess I'll just execute all of my heirs but my favorites. 

 

So it's the court's job to make sure my will is executed, right? They shouldn't have any say on what the parameters are, as long as they are not illegal, correct?

I don't mean unpalatable or fucked up, I mean illegal  

 

 

Correct.  And contracts and other instruments that discriminate on the basis of race are illegal.  Such provisions will not be enforced by a court.  Lots of shitty provisions will be enforced.  All kinds of foolishness can be enforced.  But racially exclusionary language will not be.  You may cry that such shittiness shouldn't be illegal, but that ship sailed a LONG time ago.  And I'm glad it did -- it meant that my neighbors couldn't enforce the deed restriction on my old house that forbade transfer of my property to a negro.

[JBJ 3,655]

Deed restrictions are unenforceable because they violate the CRA.  This doesn't.

[TwiceHorn 31,497]

Just a perspective note.  The authority that most of us lawdogs rely upon to determine that such seemingly private provisions are unenforceable by the courts is Shelley v. Kraemer, which is a 1948 case that held that racially discriminatory deed restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, so it isn't some newfangled, librul bullshit.  It's 70 years old.

All of these seemingly private things rely on the courts for enforcement.  Even if they never go to court, the "in terrorem" effect of such clauses is provided by the specter of court enforcement.  Quite a few wouldn't abide by the terms of a contract but for the idea that a court would force them to.

So you can write all this hateful shit into any "private" agreement or disposition of property that you want to, just don't expect the courts to have your back when push comes to shove.

Edited May 22, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,497]

21 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Deed restrictions are unenforceable because they violate the CRA.  This doesn't.

Nah, not really.  See above.  Didn't even need the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

[burntorangebongos 10,747]

11 hours ago, slorch said:

I don’t support his motivations.

I disagree with the government ‘interpreting’ them.

 

Got damn, Slorch. You have got this exactly backwards. The government doesn't want to interpret you intentions if you put in shit that is convoluted and against public policy. The government doesn't want to sort your shit out. If someone puts shit like that in their will and one of their offspring decides to dispute it, the court isn't gonna enforce that provision.

[TwiceHorn 31,497]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

In this hypothetical, the beneficiaries of the estate are suing the executor / beneficiaries of the trust?  

It seems as long as the disbursement isn't housing or tuition, the courts can enforce it.  Which in my mind means they should enforce it.

I don't think the beneficiaries of the trust would successfully sue the executor.

The beneficiary would write a letter to the trustee seeking their distribution and claiming the restrictions to be unenforceable, if so inclined.  The trustee can then follow the law and make the distribution, or decline to.  The beneficiary then sues.  Presumably beneficiary wins.

 

But see Evans v. Newton, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/382/296.html,  which contains dicta seemingly in conflict with Shelley v. Kraemer.

Edited May 22, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Got damn, Slorch. You have got this exactly backwards. The government doesn't want to interpret you intentions if you put in shit that is convoluted and against public policy. The government doesn't want to sort your shit out. If someone puts shit like that in their will and one of their offspring decides to dispute it, the court isn't gonna enforce that provision.

Is the distribution of assets dictated by public policy?  I'm not talking deed restrictions either. 

WTF does the court have to say about my shit with regard to protected classes?  It should not. 

Now, if my wishes are made public and that disuades people from voting for me, then I should have calibrated accordingly. That should be the only repercussion of said stipulations, IMHO. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by slorch

[TwiceHorn 31,497]

5 minutes ago, slorch said:

Is the distribution of assets dictated by public policy?  I'm not talking deed restrictions either. 

WTF does the court have to say about my shit with regard to protected classes?  It should not. 

Now, if my wishes ate made public and that disuades people from viting for me, then I should hace calibrated accordingly. That should be the only repercussion of said stipulations, IMHO. 

Protected classes, in this instance, has nothing to do with it.  See my post above about legal enforceability.