Dershowitz Takes Issue With Farmers' Market After Pierogi Denial
- Thread starter martybegan
- Start date
hjmick
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2007
- 31,196
- 17,051
- 1,915
Holy ******* shit! The man was denied an order of pierogis! The world may as well have stopped spinning on its axis!
Petty little **** suing over ******* pierogis... it should be thrown out and Dershowitz should be fined for filing a nuisance suit.
******* pierogi...
Petty little **** suing over ******* pierogis... it should be thrown out and Dershowitz should be fined for filing a nuisance suit.
******* pierogi...
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,494
- 263,768
- 3,615
Dershowitz is persona non grata on Martha’s Vineyard
marvin martian
Diamond Member
The DemoKKKrats desperately want to bring back their glory days, when they could proudly hang "whites only" signs in their businesses.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Who an attorney defends, either in a criminal case as an attorney of record or who an attorney chooses to defend in the public sphere...
Is not covered by MA's Public Accommodation law.
So the vendor was completely within their rights to refuse service.
WW
.
.
.
General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 272, Section 98
malegislature.gov
.
.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Not technically correct.
It depends on the reason the restarurant is refusing service. If for one of the reasons cited in the MA Public Accommodations law, that is illegal. (See previous post.)
For other reasons? Sure.
WW
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Actually the officer was correctg.
"Isn't good" such as public relation optics is one thing, a violoation of the law.
Now with that said the organizers of the Farmers Market can take action, they could bar the vendor from future markets.
WW
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
He wouldn't win as he's already made statements that the reason was NOT because he was a Jewish person, but because of who he chooses to defend.
Those very admissions and the testimony of the vendor would be presented to the court.
WW
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,494
- 263,768
- 3,615
I realize that
But Marty was saying….In NY you can’t discriminate on politics
I also posted the law in Massachusetts
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 102,679
- 53,506
- 2,615
- Thread starter
- #52
it's already the law in NY, and seems to work just fine here.
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 102,679
- 53,506
- 2,615
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 102,679
- 53,506
- 2,615
- Thread starter
- #54
Who an attorney defends, either in a criminal case as an attorney of record or who an attorney chooses to defend in the public sphere...
Is not covered by MA's Public Accommodation law.
So the vendor was completely within their rights to refuse service.
WW
.
.
.
.General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 272, Section 98
.
.
View attachment 1143703
I wonder if the left really wants to play that game.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
I have no idea if the left wants to play that game or not. Not why I'm posting.
You keep bringing up - to paraphrase - "well this is the way it is in NY". Doesn't matter, this event occurred in MA and I posted the specific statute from MA.
These are state laws and what the law is in NY has no bearing on what the law is in MA.
In MA the officer was correct.
WW
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,494
- 263,768
- 3,615
Nice try, but that applies to employment law not public accommodation
marvin martian
Diamond Member
You people said the same thing when blacks were denied service because of your Jim Crow laws.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
[THIS IS AN OLD POST FROM A DIFFERENT BOARD, BUT THE OPINION STILL APPLIES.]
Here are my thoughts...
Three generations ago there were...
1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
5. Even segregation in the military.
.
.
.
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:
1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.
2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.
3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.
**************************************************
So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.
But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.
WW
Here are my thoughts...
Three generations ago there were...
1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
5. Even segregation in the military.
.
.
.
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:
1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.
2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.
3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.
**************************************************
So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.
But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.
WW
hjmick
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2007
- 31,196
- 17,051
- 1,915
TimFitz
Platinum Member
- Oct 31, 2024
- 9,359
- 5,334
- 938
Your hypocricy is obvious.
We don't hear folks like you complaining when a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. In fact, you got a couple of years worth of gay bashing over that one.
And we don't hear folks like you condemning Trump's attacks on law firms, Firms that had people your fuhrer doesn't like as clients.
Yes, the hypocrisy is obvious, although not unpredictable.
Similar threads
