Well given that I answered your question numerous of times, you would have to tell me how posts 983 and 997 did NOT answer your question, else you'll just get the same answers. Mainly because that's the answer. How is that not valid? What part do you disagree with?
You failed to give a compelling reason for it to be meaningful. Absent that, there's no reason to humor the rest of your "argument". As I said, you're just randomly shotgunning stuff ("Actors! No, wait! Hooters! Wait, umm... I mean the Hooters lawsuit that failed! SSM? How about college enrollment?") so if you can't get that far, I'm not going to humor you just desperately throwing stuff at the wall.
That's a nice try, but I haven't retracted anything, so there is no "oh, wait" or "I mean".. Everything still stands as is. There is no random shot gunning of anything.
You claim that there is no legitimate racial discrimination.
I gave you an example of denying someone of a job because the color of their skin.
You countered that acting is protected, so "it's ok".
I countered with two law suits, Hooters and A&E. One lost and the other one won. They both stemmed from the same "image" argument used in casting actors/actresses.
As another example, I asked your opinion on racial quotas and or minority scholarships. You have yet answered that because I can only assume that you believe that they are racial discrimination and admitting so proves you wrong.
You claim that my argument fails, but you didn't say how. That doesn't help. Specifically tell me which part isn't right and why. OR, you can repeat my argument from posts 997 and 983. From there, I can see if you understood my argument.
Since Eske claims that I'm impossible to understand, maybe there's a 99% chance that my "poor" grammar confused you. So, restate my argument in your own words so I can better explain the areas where my poor grammar mislead you.