Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

I fail to see the connection. TruthMatters seems to think people have the right to trespass on private property in the name of civil rights. As that is actually a criminal offense as well as a violation of the property owner's civil rights that just makes him wrong. It says nothing about my support of the CRA.
When a business establishment doors are open to the public, they are not then simply "private property."

Private establishments, clubs, etc, yes. Any business open to the general public, no.

Are all businesse that are not specifically private open to the public?
Title II explains it fairly well.

Have you read it?
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

..."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=97&page=transcript
 
And which restaurant are we speaking of ravi?

Or are you just looking for opinion?
 
When a business establishment doors are open to the public, they are not then simply "private property."

Private establishments, clubs, etc, yes. Any business open to the general public, no.

Are all businesse that are not specifically private open to the public?
Title II explains it fairly well.

Have you read it?
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

..."

Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

That means no, glad you got that right.
 
I am a man, I have money and am willing to pay. They won't let me join. I am being discriminated against. The only criteria for not allowing me to join is my sex.
So you don't think there is a difference between a private club and a business that is open to the public. Fine by me.

I'm more interested in hearing the opinion of those that think it is okay for a business to violate someone's civil rights but neither the government nor an individual can.

There was a case recently where a restaurant posted that they would only serve customers that ordered in English. Did this violate anyone's civil rights?
I don't think so. I don't see it as the same thing, though.

Do you? If so, why?
 
And which restaurant are we speaking of ravi?

Or are you just looking for opinion?
Opinion. I am interested in knowing why some people think a business can violate someone's civil rights while government and individuals cannot.
 
And which restaurant are we speaking of ravi?

Or are you just looking for opinion?
Opinion. I am interested in knowing why some people think a business can violate someone's civil rights while government and individuals cannot.

Fair enough.

So here is the work around. Call yourself a dinner club, charge a fee for a membership card, and pick and choose who you sell the cards to.

 
And which restaurant are we speaking of ravi?

Or are you just looking for opinion?
Opinion. I am interested in knowing why some people think a business can violate someone's civil rights while government and individuals cannot.

Fair enough.

So here is the work around. Call yourself a dinner club, charge a fee for a membership card, and pick and choose who you sell the cards to.

But can you really do that? What if it was a dinner club that only allowed a certain ethnic group?

I know what the law says, I'm just curious to know what the right thing is when you review the reasons that this country was founded.

Can you discriminate against anyone and still follow the spirit of the DOI and the constitution?
 
Are all businesse that are not specifically private open to the public?
Title II explains it fairly well.

Have you read it?
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

..."

Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

That means no, glad you got that right.
It's pretty clear. If you open your doors to all, you must accept all without regard to race, religion or national origin.
 
Opinion. I am interested in knowing why some people think a business can violate someone's civil rights while government and individuals cannot.

Fair enough.

So here is the work around. Call yourself a dinner club, charge a fee for a membership card, and pick and choose who you sell the cards to.

But can you really do that? What if it was a dinner club that only allowed a certain ethnic group?

If you are a club selling memberships even if that membership is only a dollar I do believe it would apply. Private clubs can choose its membership.
 
What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

Are we talking any Business?

There are Businesses that do this all the time.

What about the YWCA?, they deny men

Country Clubs

Miss Black America

Girl Scouts

Does a person that owns a Business have any Rights?

I refused to sell something to a person that used the GD word during a conversation, do I not have a Right to refuse Service?

That being said, I would say McDonalds does not have the Right to refuse a Hamburger to someone with a different skin color than the order taker.

Rights can be a very fine line and not always cut and dried :eusa_think:
 
Fair enough.

So here is the work around. Call yourself a dinner club, charge a fee for a membership card, and pick and choose who you sell the cards to.

But can you really do that? What if it was a dinner club that only allowed a certain ethnic group?

If you are a club selling memberships even if that membership is only a dollar I do believe it would apply. Private clubs can choose its membership.
Yep. And I fully support their right to do that.
 
The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner and violate someone else's civil rights.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?
What liberty does a business owner have if he can't discriminate? What next? Calling charging for a mean will be discriminatory? Everybody needs to eat. Better still. Let's put Pat Robertson or some other religious male leader in charge of NOW. I'm sure that'll go well. How can they say no? They're discriminating otherwise.

Maybe white people should join the NAACP. How about Gay couples join charities that support the banning of Gay Marriage! Oh boy! Can we say crossed wires? Chronic drunk drivers to run MADD! Whoopie!!!

The only ones prohibited from discriminating is the government. Individuals have the right to make a white only lunch counter if they want. Sure they'll corner the KKK and White Brotherhood portion of the populace. But how long before the NORMAL citizenry (You know, the other 90% of the population) ignoring, protesting, or refusing to do business with them in return takes it's toll and puts them out of business.

The same way the dipsy chicks shot off their mouths about being ashamed to be a Americans, they deserved the backlash by the public who wanted to show them how much they disagreed with their sentiments. Should they have been protected? Fuck no. That would have been stifling their free speech or the free speech of their (now) former fans.

As I've said before: "You can't take away people's right to be assholes, and you don't have to associate with them either."
 
Who or what denies someone a meal because of their race or color? :eusa_eh:

Ron Pauls crazy ass son.

Elaborate or decipher, you pick. ;)

I will elaborate...Rand Paul, you know, ron's son is running as a tea bagger. He said he had problems with the civil rights act. He said businesses should be allowed to have No blacks allowed posted if they wanted to. He wants to abolish the Americans with disabilities act as well. Wow.

Republicans are running away from the tea bag hero.
 
In reality, there is no difference between no soup for you because of attire, and no soup for you because of skin color.

Technically, you are correct. The pracital, net effect of refusing service to someone, for whatever reason, is that no service is extended to that person.

But that's where your distinction ends. Realistically, and LEGALLY, in today's America, there is a HUGE difference between refusing service to someone because of attire or because of skin color.

Think about it. What is the basic reason for refusing service to someone because of attire? Becauase the restaurant has a dress code - something they legally can do. And why do they want a dress code? In order to ensure a standard they want to maintain for their restaurant.

What is the basic reason for refusing service to someone because of skin color? Racial prejudice. There can be no other. THAT, is illegal, my friend. Look it up.

To put it another way, refusing service because of attire is a RATIONAL reason. Refusing service because of skin color is an IRRATIONAL (and illegal) reason.

I started a thread that said a racist, one htat hates blacks must hate the fact that Obama is president and they must be hating life right now. Paulie must be a very depressed person right now.
 
What century is this? Back to whites only restaurants? Not in America. You can refuse to serve someone based on some bad behavior but not the color of his skin.
 
Last edited:
So someone is forced to serve you? Do they not have the right to deny service to anyone they so choose?

I was once refused service at a restaurant because I refused to wear a tie. Should I have filed a law suit?

You always have the freedom to make your own lunch.
No one is forced to open a restaurant. So no, no one is forced to serve anyone. However, if they do open a restaurant, how can they choose to violate someone's civil rights (and no a neck tie doesn't qualify)?

So denying service because of not wearing a fucking tie doesn't count as discrimination?

The only reason why the skin color issue is pertinent to you in this case is because of how sensitive the issue is to society.

In reality, there is no difference between no soup for you because of attire, and no soup for you because of skin color.

Thats absurd.
 
The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner and violate someone else's civil rights.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

conservative businesses and christians have the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION.

That means that they can hire or fire based upon their political, social and religious beliefs.

forcing them to hire undesirable (gays, jews, blacks, feminists, atheists, liberals) would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL denial of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS!

on the other hand
NONconservative/NON_christian businesses can NOT refuse to hire conservatives or christians...

because THAT would be DISCRIMINATION and BIGOTRY!
it would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL denial of the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of conservatives and christians

and that explains that......

How about you check out your carbon monoxide detector. If it checks out okay, you might have good grounds for a law suit against the school board responsible for your education. :):):) I'll testify for you. ;)
 
The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner and violate someone else's civil rights.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

conservative businesses and christians have the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION.

That means that they can hire or fire based upon their political, social and religious beliefs.

forcing them to hire undesirable (gays, jews, blacks, feminists, atheists, liberals) would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL denial of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS!

on the other hand
NONconservative/NON_christian businesses can NOT refuse to hire conservatives or christians...

because THAT would be DISCRIMINATION and BIGOTRY!
it would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL denial of the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of conservatives and christians

and that explains that......

EXCELLENT post . . . I think . . .

You ARE being critical of conservatives who would stamp on the civil rights of others and supportive of liberals who oppose such practices, right?

If so: :clap2:

If not, well, hmmmmm . . . .

His model is corrupted and misconstrued. It's a false comparison.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top