continued for two more nights. the florida times union the white paper of record did not see fit to mention it. it was just a hurricane of violence. in the end, the kids, the young people who organized those protests at the lunch counters, they won. they started those protests like i said in august, 1960. by the spring of 1961, jacksonville had quietly integrated its downtown lunch counters. and it took longer but the florida times union newspaper in recent years has tried to make up for the dismal role that it played in these events. they have in years since devoted serious coverage to the annual anniversary of what has become known as ax handle saturday such a dramatic name but they really did stockpile and hand out ax handles and use them in an orgy of white violence against any black
downtown jacksonville and ostensibly were targeting the young people, the naacp youth council that had been carrying out the nonviolent civil disobedience at the lunch counters. but turns out the klan couldn t contain themselves and it turned into just a free for all. and, yes, the naacp youth council was set upon, airman second class alton yates was cracked across the skull. they also just went after everybody who was black in downtown jacksonville that day including women and kids and men who had nothing to do with the demonstration at all who were just passersby. this photo appeared in life magazine at the time. you see that young man bloodied and dazed. he actually was not an activist. he had not been part of the lunch counter sit-ins at all. his name was charlie griffin. he was just a high school junior, just a bystander.
go to another vendor mistakes the nature of the injury. the nature of the injury, when people were being denied service a the lunch counters, the idea that there would be another lunch counter that would serve black individuals would be totally irrelevant. the harm is in the refusal and the lack of respect for dignity in a public sphere when a business is opening itself to everyone but you and calling it public accommodation. let me read more from justice sotomayor s dissenting opinion. she writes, the first amendment does not entitle petitioners to a special exemption from a state law that simply requires them to serve all members of the public on equal terms. the first amendment like wise does not exempt petitioners from the law s prohibition on posting a notice that they will deny goods or services based on sexual orientation. let s me bring in kimberly atkins stohr to weigh in on this as well. your thoughts on what we just heard from carrie severino and this argument from justice
back then, confirmation hearings were usually brief and tame affairs. you were a competent judge, capable of being a functioning justice, you would get confirmed. the bork confirmation changed that. judge bork should be immediately confirmed. the right thought bork would be a shoo-in. he was a distinguished scholar and an appeals court judge. so well respected and thought of in the legal academy, there would be no problem getting him confirmed. the left saw him as a far right extremist. liberals were appropriately worried about what robert bork would do if he got on the supreme court. among his views, he was against the 1964 civil rights act. blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters. ted kennedy led the charge against bork. robert bork s america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions. the women s groups frankly are afraid. they re afraid of you. one incendiary example of why, bork had upheld a mandatory
robert bork s america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks will be sits in segregated lunch counters. rogue police can break down citizens doors and school s children cannot be taught about evolution. writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government. robert bork s confirmation hearing, senator candy expose robert bork as someone who didn t believe in a right to privacy, including privacy behind a closed bedroom door. let the repeat about this creative, generalized, and undefined right of privacy. if it really is a right of sexual freedom in private, as some people have suggested, then bowers against hardwick, which upheld the statute against sodomy as applied to