Property Rights and Racism

[Intense]

What does that matter? The restaurant is open to the public right? So all of the public should be allowed to eat there, including the KKK if we follow the logic that we've seen from you over the past few days.

The KKK Members affiliation is not protected under the Constitution. Neither is a Black Panthers affiliation. Both can legally be refused service.

Nice try, but no. You'd file your lawsuit claiming race discrimination. Blacks for years have bitched that whites have used covers, and they win. As a practical matter, you CANNOT simply say "I don't care they're black, I don't like their pants drooping", etc. and you will STILL GET SUED UP AND DOWN and... YOU WILL LOSE.

Got it?

So, it's kind of delicious to imagine blacks squirming over the KKK hypo.

Sorry man, behavior is relevant. Dress codes are relevant. Upsetting the place is relevant. Get over it.

 

[Barb]

Starting to understand why whites are pissed?

Nope. Whine some more, maybe I'll understand. Probably not.

Caligula never did understand why he wasn't liked, but history moved on without him anyway.

And it will move on without you, as well as me. Time marches on.

 

[Middleman]

I have not given you an answer, so don't presume.

The question is too vague...is the KKK member, who is a KNOWN organization that has literally KILLED black people - walks into a black owned restaurant, is he being disruptive?

Is he going in, sitting down and simply having a meal? Is he wearing a sign saying KKK?
You even mentioned "going in with their nightgown." Do they take off their White Sheet nightgown mask to eat, or do they just stuff it through the mouth hole?

Some time ago, a man was thrown out of the local shopping mall for having a t-shirt on advocating peace and an end to the war in Iraq. It was deemed legal on the grounds that it could create a disturbance.
Naturally, I disagreed. I think anyone should be served unless they, personally, create a disturbance.

No, you don't. If someone wore a Stormfront T-shirt to the store, and everyone starting freaking out, you wouldn't take his side. You'd say "well, he should be thrown out."

That's the problem. Whites don't have the same rights as blacks. Blacks can run through a restaurant whooping and creating a ruckus, but you dare not touch them. They'll bitch, sue, win. Whites can't even quietly and peacefully express pride, and if they do, the resulting blacks freaking out is THEIR fault.

Starting to understand why whites are pissed?

Stormfront is an off the wall, extremist site, IMHO.

 

[Intense]

Bottom line, behavior makes or breaks you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The scenario you presented is basically so hypothetical as to border on absurd, and you keep getting more absurd by then asking if it's ok for a restaurant to exclude Republicans or Democrats, etc...

In the first scenario, KKK people hate Blacks, correct? Why would they, then, go to a restaurant owned by a Black man, who could spit in his food if he wanted to? The Black man just happens to know that the guy is KKK, most likely because he lives in a small town, eh? Anyways, I voted yes, he can ask him to leave.

And, why in the world would a restaurant, in the business of making money, want to turn away half their customers based on political affiliation? The profit margin in the restaurant business is slim. If the restaurant wants to go out of business, then it can start arbitrarily turning people away and pissing off all their friends and neighbors.

There was a doctor somewhere back east who put a sign on his office suggesting Democrats who support National Healthcare to take their business elsewhere, it made the news but I think he had the right to post the sign, so yes, if the restaurant wants to tell people to shove it, I guess they have a right to most likely go out of business.

Why would a black person want to go to a restaurant owned by a white supremacist?

Gee, of course to meet white women. Isn't that why white men go to have soul food, to meet black women?

Is that a racial comment?

 

[nraforlife]

[..................... not protected under the Constitution. Neither is a Black Panthers affiliation. Both can legally be refused service.

Hmmm, what are most ALL BP's?

BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore, to deny service because of that affiliation would have dispariate impact and be illegal.

Wrong. You come into my hypothetical store and disrupt the atmosphere, You either leave by your will or mine. The dots you connect are false reasoning applied to what you imagine the Constitution to read. Though you are not alone in your imagining, you are misguided. We are all visitors in other peoples domains, I'd advise losing the attitudes and focusing on courtesy and politeness. It goes farther than wiping your feet on the merchants, and expecting every single thing your way, regardless of the needs of those around you.

Just telling you what the Reality is in your part of the world.

 

[Intense]

Hmmm, what are most ALL BP's?

BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore, to deny service because of that affiliation would have dispariate impact and be illegal.

Wrong. You come into my hypothetical store and disrupt the atmosphere, You either leave by your will or mine. The dots you connect are false reasoning applied to what you imagine the Constitution to read. Though you are not alone in your imagining, you are misguided. We are all visitors in other peoples domains, I'd advise losing the attitudes and focusing on courtesy and politeness. It goes farther than wiping your feet on the merchants, and expecting every single thing your way, regardless of the needs of those around you.

Just telling you what the Reality is in your part of the world.

In my part of the world, if anyone finds Themselves lost or disoriented, at the wrong time of day or night, you are at risk. There are neighborhoods here, that the cop's are uncomfortable in.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why would a black person want to go to a restaurant owned by a white supremacist?

Gee, of course to meet white women. Isn't that why white men go to have soul food, to meet black women?

Is that a racial comment?

No, a sardonic one. Wasn't that obvious?

 

[jillian]

What does that matter? The restaurant is open to the public right? So all of the public should be allowed to eat there, including the KKK if we follow the logic that we've seen from you over the past few days.

It matters a great deal if you understand the Civil Rights Act.

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

people aren't allowed to discriminate against others for what they are born. one is not born a kkk'er and that isn't a suspect class.

here's where your refusal to actually study these things gets you in trouble. there are limits to what government can do. but those are circumscribed by statute and caselaw.... not by what you wish were the case.

your rights end at the tip of someone else's nose and i'm really confused as to why you refuse to understand that.

 

[Yurt]

It matters a great deal if you understand the Civil Rights Act.

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

people aren't allowed to discriminate against others for what they are born. one is not born a kkk'er and that isn't a suspect class.

here's where your refusal to actually study these things gets you in trouble. there are limits to what government can do. but those are circumscribed by statute and caselaw.... not by what you wish were the case.

your rights end at the tip of someone else's nose and i'm really confused as to why you refuse to understand that.

this

 

[Ravi]

What if mom and dad are grand wizards...aren't the children then born KKKers?



Anyway, I disagree. Just as the KKK enjoys the freedom to assemble in public places to hold their rallies, so too do they enjoy the freedom to enter a public place. They are not free to be disruptive or threatening.

And I would imagine that enforcing a dress code is not an infringement on anyone's civil rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gee, of course to meet white women. Isn't that why white men go to have soul food, to meet black women?

Is that a racial comment?

No, a sardonic one. Wasn't that obvious?

Nope.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It matters a great deal if you understand the Civil Rights Act.

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

people aren't allowed to discriminate against others for what they are born. one is not born a kkk'er and that isn't a suspect class.

here's where your refusal to actually study these things gets you in trouble. there are limits to what government can do. but those are circumscribed by statute and caselaw.... not by what you wish were the case.

your rights end at the tip of someone else's nose and i'm really confused as to why you refuse to understand that.

I understand what the law is, I'm explaining why the law is wrong in my opinion.

I'm confused as to why you refuse to understand that. Your right not to be discriminated against ends at the borders of somebody else's property.

 

[Ravi]

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

people aren't allowed to discriminate against others for what they are born. one is not born a kkk'er and that isn't a suspect class.

here's where your refusal to actually study these things gets you in trouble. there are limits to what government can do. but those are circumscribed by statute and caselaw.... not by what you wish were the case.

your rights end at the tip of someone else's nose and i'm really confused as to why you refuse to understand that.

I understand what the law is, I'm explaining why the law is wrong in my opinion.

I'm confused as to why you refuse to understand that. Your right not to be discriminated against ends at the borders of somebody else's property.

Not if their property is open to the public.

 

[JBeukema]

Witty. I wonder where you got the idea to post that image in a thread about this subject...

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?

​

 

[JBeukema]

What does that matter? The restaurant is open to the public right? So all of the public should be allowed to eat there, including the KKK if we follow the logic that we've seen from you over the past few days.

It matters a great deal if you understand the Civil Rights Act.

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

Florida doctor tells Obama voters to ’seek care elsewhere’ | Raw Story

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

people aren't allowed to discriminate against others for what they are born. one is not born a kkk'er and that isn't a suspect class.

here's where your refusal to actually study these things gets you in trouble. there are limits to what government can do. but those are circumscribed by statute and caselaw.... not by what you wish were the case.

your rights end at the tip of someone else's nose and i'm really confused as to why you refuse to understand that.

I understand what the law is, I'm explaining why the law is wrong in my opinion.

I'm confused as to why you refuse to understand that. Your right not to be discriminated against ends at the borders of somebody else's property.

Not if their property is open to the public.

How about at a garage sale? Since it's that person's home could they discriminate there since it's still their home, or would that be considered "open to the public?"

 

[JBeukema]

The KKK is not a religion.

Sure it is. They're both worldviews and a set of beliefs.What';s the difference between discrimination based on whether one believes God's name is Allah or El or YHWH or Ahura Mazda and whether one believes That the ideal human form is best represented in the strong Negroid, the intellectual Mongoloid, or the balanced Caucasoid?

 

[JBeukema]

Some time ago, a man was thrown out of the local shopping mall for having a t-shirt on advocating peace and an end to the war in Iraq. It was deemed legal on the grounds that it could create a disturbance.
Naturally, I disagreed. I think anyone should be served unless they, personally, create a disturbance.

No, you don't. If someone wore a Stormfront T-shirt to the store, and everyone starting freaking out, you wouldn't take his side. You'd say "well, he should be thrown out."

That's the problem. Whites don't have the same rights as blacks. Blacks can run through a restaurant whooping and creating a ruckus, but you dare not touch them. They'll bitch, sue, win. Whites can't even quietly and peacefully express pride, and if they do, the resulting blacks freaking out is THEIR fault.

Starting to understand why whites are pissed?

Stormfront is an off the wall, extremist site, IMHO.

I take issue with that post. I would argue that's a fact and not an opinion.

 

[JBeukema]

people aren't allowed to discriminate against others for what they are born. one is not born a kkk'er and that isn't a suspect class.

Now substitute Catholic, Jew, Muslim, World Famous Pedophile [okay, that's pretty much back to Catholic ] or known serial killer for 'kkk'er' and look into that

here's where your refusal to actually study these things gets you in trouble. there are limits to what government can do. but those are circumscribed by statute and caselaw...

Actually, it's supposed to be limited only by the language of the law itself, with necessary changes being reflected therein. Judges are not supposed to write laws from the bench as you speak of them doing.