FOX News sees nothing wrong seperate lunch counters

[Lonestar_logic]

The Right to Discriminate? | Media Matters for America

FOX feels businesses should be able to disciminate. HHhhmmmm, it sounds a lot like a Rand Paul platform.

Stossel is the voice of Fox? Stossel gave his opinion nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A business can reserve the right refuse service to anyone as long as it's not based on race, color, religion, or natural origin. Some reasons for refusing service is:

■Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
■Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
■Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
■Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
■Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In order to get around this race, color, religion, or natural origin clause, one simply has to state another reason for refusal of services.

 

[Coyote]

I'm no fan of Fox News...but what did Stossel actually say? Is there not a bit of spin going on?

He said:
"Private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

I don't agree - but what he is supporting is not discrimmination or racism, but the "right" of private business' to "discrimminate" and the public, to be the ones to target them for discrimmination. I suspect he views it like "free speech" - even the most dispicable groups, such as KKK or NAMBLA have a right to say what they believe.

I don't agree with it though, because - unlike speech, discrimminatory practices in employment, patronage etc have very real human repercussions that can't be ignorered by not listening. For example - "whites only" neighborhoods where realty professionals would show whites nicer sections of housing, but if blacks inquired - there was nothing available. I suppose one could view it as the "right to discrimminate" but the end result was gross injustice.

 

[RDD_1210]

So now the rights of private business is more important then the rights of individuals. Where in the constitution that republicans are trying so hard "to protect" does it say this?

Seems like you want your personal freedoms to remain intact.....as long as it's YOUR personal freedoms and not everyones.

 

[JimH52]

So now the rights of private business is more important then the rights of individuals. Where in the constitution that republicans are trying so hard "to protect" does it say this?

Seems like you want your personal freedoms to remain intact.....as long as it's YOUR personal freedoms and not everyones.

EXACTLY! That is the Tea party Platform!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So now the rights of private business is more important then the rights of individuals. Where in the constitution that republicans are trying so hard "to protect" does it say this?

Seems like you want your personal freedoms to remain intact.....as long as it's YOUR personal freedoms and not everyones.

Private business is generally owned by individuals. Just because a person creates a business does not mean he loses his individual rights or at least it shouldn't.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal posting found in most businesses.

 

[paperview]

So now the rights of private business is more important then the rights of individuals. Where in the constitution that republicans are trying so hard "to protect" does it say this?

Seems like you want your personal freedoms to remain intact.....as long as it's YOUR personal freedoms and not everyones.

Private business is generally owned by individuals. Just because a person creates a business does not mean he loses his individual rights or at least it shouldn't.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal posting found in most businesses.

Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers

 

[RDD_1210]

Private business is generally owned by individuals. Just because a person creates a business does not mean he loses his individual rights or at least it shouldn't.

Correct, a person who owns a business doesn't lose his individual rights, but show me where in the constitution his/her rights now supersede the individual rights of black people just because he owns a business.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal posting found in most businesses.

Ummm for valid reasons under the laws of our country. Refusing service because of skin color is not legal so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[paperview]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

 

[California Girl]

The Right to Discriminate? | Media Matters for America

FOX feels businesses should be able to disciminate. HHhhmmmm, it sounds a lot like a Rand Paul platform.

I wasn't aware that a corporation could 'feel' anything.

Word of advice.... try thinking for yourself and examining both sides of an issue. Then make up your own mind. It is not good to be fed information from the media.... It's not like Media Matters is a bipartisan organization itself.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's not in the business interests to exclude customers. Businesses like to have as many customers as possible, and most people don't mind encountering those of other races where they do business.

YEah that's why there's so many white people at the local hood grocery store.

 

[DiveCon]

It's not in the business interests to exclude customers. Businesses like to have as many customers as possible, and most people don't mind encountering those of other races where they do business.

YEah that's why there's so many white people at the local hood grocery store.

what an ignorant statement
but then, I've come to expect that from you

 

[Si modo]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

Only, Stossel isn't a Republican. Imagine that.

 

[maineman]

if some kid behind the counter says that, then he will offend more than just that one family, and would more than likely be the doom of that business


why do you want racists to hide their racism?

I want to follow your logic, if there was a sign out that said whites only and that black family didn't see it, what makes you think the people already in that restaurant wouldn't back up that kid.
Comments?
Stay on point on this one.....

because the place would very likely be empty

do you honestly believe that there are NOT white neighborhoods in the deep south where a whites only restaurant would thrive?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's not in the business interests to exclude customers. Businesses like to have as many customers as possible, and most people don't mind encountering those of other races where they do business.

YEah that's why there's so many white people at the local hood grocery store.

what an ignorant statement
but then, I've come to expect that from you

Bla bla bla

 

[paperview]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

Only, Stossel isn't a Republican. Imagine that.

Unless Stossel is a registered user here, or at the other board I post at, I'm not talking about him.

Use those reading skills you claim to be so good at a little harder.

 

[Si modo]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

Only, Stossel isn't a Republican. Imagine that.

Unless Stossel is a registered user here, or at the other board I post at, I'm not talking about him.

Use those reading skills you claim to be so good at a little harder.

Ohhhhh! So, you're posting as you typically do. Attacking personally rather than on topic.

Got it.

 

[California Girl]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Now, to the point.... Rand is not arguing against the CR Act. He's arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate - IF that is what they so choose. I happen to agree with him.... NOT because I'm a racist, but precisely the opposite. I want racists out in the open, where we can see them, not allowed to hide behind an Act designed to help minorities.

I would rather know who they are so that I can withhold my business from them. I don't want to do business with racists. I would have thought that was a good thing, fighting racism... apparently not. Apparently, it's better to have them hiding and not confront them.

 

[paperview]

Only, Stossel isn't a Republican. Imagine that.

Unless Stossel is a registered user here, or at the other board I post at, I'm not talking about him.

Use those reading skills you claim to be so good at a little harder.

Ohhhhh! So, you're posting as you typically do. Attacking personally rather than on topic.

Got it.

That's like being accused of animal cruelty by Michael Vick.

 

[maineman]

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Funny.... he didn't run for the Libertarian Party nomination for the US Senate seat in KY, did he?

His Dad certainly ran for president in '08 as a republican, didn't he?