Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[SpidermanTuba]

You do not have a "right" to run a public business...

Sure he does. He just doesn't have the right to run it any way he wants.


What I find most apalling is that idiots like Modbert and JKPukemia would like to make food poisoning and explosive diarrhea part of daily life in America.

I would assume they believe that since the government has no constitutional authority to tell them they can't deny service based on race, the government certainly has no authority to tell them they must require their employees wash their hands after using the bathroom, and that they must provide their employees what they need to wash their hands.

But hey - the free market would fix that. Places that served food that gave you the shits would just go out of business - just like in Mexico!

 

[manifold]

More like you think everyone who agrees with the Civil Liberties Act also thinks all white people are racist.

Not at all. Besides, why would I call myself racist?

What you're doing right now is being dishonest on several levels.

and then some

 

[manifold]

You can't exercise your rights by infringing on someone else's.

Obviously you can if you have the government's backing... and the blessings of short-sighted retards such as yourself.

 

[manifold]

The entire premise of this thread was to discuss whether or not a public business can violate someone's civil rights by refusing to serve them.

I say no, it cannot.

I say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

Youarestupid.

 

[manifold]

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

Youarestupid.

Hey, don't blame the messenger. I'm with you, I think it's pretty stupid too... hence the

 

[paperview]

I say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

I own my own business and have for many many years now. I have not relinquished all my rights.

I still have plenty of them, and the one about not being allowed to discriminate on account of race, creed or national origin wasn't a 'right' that ever factored much into any of my business equations.

I guess for some it does.

 

[Anguille]

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

Youarestupid.[/quote]
Andthensome.

 

[manifold]

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

I own my own business and have for many many years now. I have not relinquished all my rights.

I still have plenty of them, and the one about not being allowed to discriminate on account of race, creed or national origin wasn't a 'right' that ever factored much into any of my business equations.

I guess for some it does.

Anyone that truly cherishes liberty must acknowledge and accept that others may exercise their liberty in ways in which you might not approve.

 

[Valerie]

I say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

So anyone who disagrees with you is either too stupid to understand or they lack the courage to be honest, huh ? I'm sure you're convinced.....



Individual citizens in America are free to own restaurants or hotels or airlines or ANY business of public accommodation, but in order to do so they must live under the rule of law as provided under the Constitution.

14th Amendment Section. 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You reeeeeeally think that's big government oppression that amounts to business owners "working for the man" ?

Sounds more like you hold a strong desire to be the authoritarian big man, to me...

 

[Anguille]

Sounds more like you hold a strong desire to be the authoritarian big man, to me...

He's got issues, I tell ya!

 

[manifold]

Val clearly lacks the courage to admit when she supports restricting freedom for the greater good.

That's certainly worth a neg rep in my book.

 

[Ravi]

You can't exercise your rights by infringing on someone else's.

Obviously you can if you have the government's backing... and the blessings of short-sighted retards such as yourself.

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

 

[Ravi]

I say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

What an idiot you are.

 

[Anguille]

Val clearly lacks the courage to admit when she supports restricting freedom for the greater good.

That's certainly worth a neg rep in my book.

Neg rep is sooooo authoritarian.

 

[Ravi]

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Ok I get it, as long as you go to work for the man, you get to keep your rights. But God forbid you want to work for yourself... then you must relinquish all rights.

So anyone who disagrees with you is either too stupid to understand or they lack the courage to be honest, huh ? I'm sure you're convinced.....



Individual citizens in America are free to own restaurants or hotels or airlines or ANY business of public accommodation, but in order to do so they must live under the rule of law as provided under the Constitution.

14th Amendment Section. 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You reeeeeeally think that's big government oppression that amounts to business owners "working for the man" ?

Sounds more like you hold a strong desire to be the authoritarian big man, to me...

Manifold apparently doesn't approve of the constitution.

 

[Valerie]

Val clearly lacks the courage to admit when she supports restricting freedom for the greater good.

That's certainly worth a neg rep in my book.

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -18 reputation points from manifold.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
fail

Regards,
manifold

 

[Ravi]

Val clearly lacks the courage to admit when she supports restricting freedom for the greater good.

That's certainly worth a neg rep in my book.

Neg rep is sooooo authoritarian.

LOL! In mani's case it is ineffectual tool. Kind of like mani himself.

 

[manifold]

You can't exercise your rights by infringing on someone else's.

Obviously you can if you have the government's backing... and the blessings of short-sighted retards such as yourself.

No, not even with the government's backing. You cannot exercise your civil rights at the expense of another's. And that is what you are trying to do.

You're wrong.

Take for example the case of the photographer who declined to photograph a lesbian union on religious grounds. The dikes sued her and won.

If you're going to undertake some ludicrous mental masturbation to wrongly conclude that the photographer's rights aren't being infringed upon, or that simply declining the business violated the dike's rights, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss.

Happy whoring.

 

[Anguille]

Val clearly lacks the courage to admit when she supports restricting freedom for the greater good.

That's certainly worth a neg rep in my book.

Neg rep is sooooo authoritarian.

LOL! In mani's case it is ineffectual tool. Kind of like mani himself.

doil!