Café Closed to Some

Discussion in 'USMB Breaking News' started by Peony, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. Peony
    Offline

    Peony Rookie Op-ed Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ratings:
    +136
    Honolulu Mom and Pop fancy greasy spoon specializing in Italian food, Café 8½ recently put up a handwritten message on the front door. It read, “if you voted for Trump you cannot eat here! No Nazis."

    A business ought to be able to choose who they serve, right? If a business wants only a certain clientele, that’s up to them. It’s OK if they only serve rich white men or only skinny middle aged women or only people who smell nice, right? Besides, Café 8.5 assures us that they aren’t grilling people at the door over this, if a Trump voter should order a meal, they won’t spit in his salad or anything.

    Why put up such a sign at all?

    Discouraging people who believe differently than you from visiting your place of business can’t be wrong, can it? You are a proud liberal running a restaurant. It’s perfectly reasonable that you don’t want any nasty right wingers ruining the nice left wingers’ dining experience. Keep the undesirables out. Call them Nazis! They’ll take their business elsewhere. It’s a win/win! (If anyone complains, you can always tell them you were just kidding.)

    It happens all the time. It must be perfectly fine (legal even?!) for a business to turn away customers. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. That’s OK, right? It’s a public health issue. We can’t have bare skin touching various surfaces. People without shoes don’t have much money to spend anyway. Surely this is an example of sound business practice trumping the cold heartedness of leaving poor scantily clad homeless people outside of your store.

    No More than Two Teenagers in the Store at a Time. That’s OK, right? It discourages hoodlum flash mobs. It’s not like teenagers are being targeted or anything. It’s not like, say, ordering black people to sit in the back of the building. That’s not OK. That is discriminating against someone based on their skin color. There are laws against that.

    How about a baker turning down a request to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding? That’s not OK, is it? The baker might hurt the couple’s feelings. They might sue the baker and the baker might lose his business paying to defend himself for a business decision based on his religious belief.

    We know that it is wrong to exclude certain classes of people based on such things as their skin color or disability. Is it OK to refuse service to Nazis? And what if they aren’t really Nazis? Do those Bernie supporters who voted for Trump have grounds to sue Café 8.5?

    Should Café 8.5 be forced to serve Trump voters, even if it goes against their deeply held beliefs? Do we need more laws? Do we need to expand the list of categories of people businesses are not allowed to vex? Should we include political affiliation? If so, should that be all political affiliation or just the group who lost big in the last election?

    On the other hand, maybe we need fewer laws. Maybe businesses should be able to exercise their freedom of choice to turn away anybody, for any reason.

    In the case of Cafe 8.5, the people who voted for Trump will eat somewhere else. Café 8.5 will lose revenue. Some other restaurant will gain customers. Donald Trump voters tend to believe in competition, capitalism. (The Bernie supporter Trump voters may learn to believe!) Now, there’s a win/win!

    Wait. Do we need laws to protect businesses like Café 8.5 from shooting themselves in the foot?

    /www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/cannot-eat-here-hawaii-caf-riles-residents-with-ban-on-trump-voters.html?refresh=true
    Hawaii Cafe Refuses Trump Supporters
    Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake
    https://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=18&q=Cafe 8 1/2 Honolulu HI&ss=ypid.YN873x108394225&ppois=21.3082599639893_-157.859893798828_Cafe 8 1/2_YN873x108394225~&cp=21.30826~-157.859894&v=2&sV=1
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  2. Mrs. M.
    Offline

    Mrs. M. Man Feed Guest Writer Op-ed Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    739
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    940
    Ratings:
    +1,423
    :clap:
     
  3. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    Unless you're able to perceive the difference between the former - an immutable fact of the individual's life that they didn't choose - and the latter - a philosophy chosen voluntarily - any disagreement would be incomprehensible.

    The restaurant's owners could have chosen a less in-your-face way to get their point across. However, maybe having watched Trump rallies they thought this was the only language his "fans" would understand.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
  4. miketx
    Offline

    miketx Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    31,393
    Thanks Received:
    3,188
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Ratings:
    +35,063
    My God? Why on Earth would you pass a law to keep people from being stupid? It hasn't worked for the democrats.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,874
    Thanks Received:
    12,570
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,528
    I don't think I have any Nazi tendencies, but I did vote for Trump. So. . .

    If I came up to that restaurant and read that sign, and it was a place that looked like a place I would want to eat--I'm not all that fond of Italian food--I would go in, smile at the server, order my meal, and enjoy it.

    THEN I would advise the proprietor that I voted for Trump and let him throw me out.

    He's happy and I got a free meal so I'm happy.

    Win win for all.
     
  6. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,354
    Thanks Received:
    1,601
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,221
    As a libertarian objectivist, it is an immutable fact of my life that I cannot choose to support a statist or anyone whose ideas are involuntarily forced upon consenting adults. I was born this way.

    Checkmate.
     
  7. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    Dominant or recessive?
     
  8. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    156,435
    Thanks Received:
    14,071
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +44,310
    The law does not give a fuck. No check mate for you, bub, you are not even in the game.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    156,435
    Thanks Received:
    14,071
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +44,310
    For the nine of you who care about objectivism and libertarianism, here on the Board, for you:

    1. Objectivism and libertarianism - Wikipedia

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_O...
      For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions.

    2. Libertarianism - Wikipedia

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
      Objectivism; Right libertarianism; Social anarchism; Voluntaryism; Principal concerns. Anti-individualism; Authoritarianism; ... by definition, not ...

    3. Objectivists and Libertarians | Libertarianism.org

      www.libertarianism.org/.../objectivists
      Boaz addresses the question of whether libertarianism must rest on the Objectivist philosophical system.

    4. Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz

      reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
      Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter ... legitimately owned property is, we can very easily define force, certainly so as to preclude trespass.

    5. Libertarianism and Objectivism : definition of Libertarianism ...
     
  10. Russ Alllah Gehry
    Offline

    Russ Alllah Gehry VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Thanks Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +500
    Much ado about nothing. They cannot know how anyone voted. So I smell bullshit here.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1

Share This Page