Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[JBeukema]

We won the war.

I see. Might makes right. Had the Redcoats successfully suppressed the uprising, it would have effected some magical incantation that would have retroactively revoked the right to self-determination that we didn't have anyway until our victory in the conflict retroactively established it...

You realize, of course, that you're actually arguing against the existence of a right to self-determination- or any actual rights.

 

[Ravi]

We won the war.

I see. Might makes right. Had the Redcoats successfully suppressed the uprising, it would have effected some magical incantation that would have retroactively revoked the right to self-determination that we didn't have anyway until our victory in the conflict retroactively established it...

You realize, of course, that you're actually arguing against the existence of a right to self-determination- or any actual rights.

Nope. We would have tried again. But you can continue with your narrow thinking, it suits you.

 

[syrenn]

We won the war.

I see. Might makes right. Had the Redcoats successfully suppressed the uprising, it would have effected some magical incantation that would have retroactively revoked the right to self-determination that we didn't have anyway until our victory in the conflict retroactively established it...

You realize, of course, that you're actually arguing against the existence of a right to self-determination- or any actual rights.

Nope. We would have tried again. But you can continue with your narrow thinking, it suits you.

However it does not make him wrong about the redcoats now does it. Or about what followed.

The only mitigating factor in history or what is right or wrong is who WINS the war.

 

[JBeukema]

Nope. We would have tried again.

And if we won that time, we'd retroactively have had a right to self-determination? You don't seem to grasp the concept of what rights are.

But you can continue with your narrow thinking, it suits you.

right... says the woman who thinks the Founding Fathers had no right to kick the king to the curb.

You try to pick and choose who has rights based on whether you like them or not. Either people possess rights or they do not.

 

[JBeukema]

Ravi and her 'might makes right' approach to who has rights and who doesn't stand in total opposition to any concept of inherit rights of all people.

 

[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.

 

[manifold]

Sigh. This thread isn't about racism. It is about whose rights are to be protected: the rights of a business or an individual.

That's what it's turned into. I look at it this way:

A business whether it be public or private owns or rents that piece of land. Therefore, as long as they not are infringing on someone else's rights, they should be able to do what they want on said land. Whether it may be smoking indoors, gambling, prostitution, having drugs, etc. Why? Because the business is their private property.

Yes, the businesses must be licensed by the state. However, the same can be said of individual homes to a degree. So now do people have any real rights if you look at it that way?

Smoking, prostitution, doing drugs, gambling...these are all recreational activities they are NOT civil rights.

But going out to eat at a restaurant is a civil right, and not at all recreational.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Let us say that it is both wrong to discriminate and to infringe on a businesskeeper's right to do business with whom he or she pleases.

Might the lesser of the two evils in this instance have been to limit the liberty of the businesskeeper in order to dismantle an entrenched system of oppression against an entire race?

After all, do we not do just this sort of thing in other areas of law, limiting one liberty to protect another, such as limiting the right to keep, bear, and discharge a firearm in order to protect the safety and welfare of those who might become victim to a stray bullet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are wrong.

Let me put this into a real world context you can easily grasp to indicate how this will work. Jim Bob runs a restaurant, and also happens to hate homosexuals, who, I am sure you will admit, have the same civil rights everyone else does, whatever they might be. Two drag queens walk into his restaurant on a Sunday afternoon just after he opens to serve the crowd from the local Baptist church where he serves as a deacon. He refuses to seat them for no other reason than that they are gay.

You are now all up in arms because he has violated their "civil right" to eat in his restaurant. You want to join them in a suit in Federal court because of your righteous indignation. You actually run into a competent lawyer who proceeds to advise you that, under the Civil Rights Act, you have no case. The law does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That proves that businesses have the right to violate your civil rights, if they pick the correct one to violate. I believe it also indicates why the CRA is unconstitutional when it tries to impose regulations on private conduct.

 

[JBeukema]

I believe it also indicates why the CRA is unconstitutional when it tries to impose regulations on private conduct.

Clarify. Private conduct is limited in many areas and private business as well.

Are you claiming that all laws relating to either private business or individual conduct are unconstitutional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe it also indicates why the CRA is unconstitutional when it tries to impose regulations on private conduct.

Clarify. Private conduct is limited in many areas and private business as well.

Are you claiming that all laws relating to either private business or individual conduct are unconstitutional?

As long as that conduct does not bring harm to anyone else, yes.

 

[Father Time]

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

I don't think they are entitled to serve you. Remember ye olde sign 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'. I think that should apply.

Although the good news is that even if the discrimination laws went away, in most places in the US anyone who publicly discriminates against race will be met with scorn, ridicule and lost business.

They'd certainly lose my business.

 

[Dante]

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?

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service:
Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers

 

[Modbert]

"Fit" Since when does equality have to fit?

You asked why someone would still patronise or want to patronize a restaurant run by racists. I answered your question, because people need to eat. I still have no idea what you are getting at with all your posturing.

I was speaking of laws in general.

Because people need to eat is the best you can come up with? I doubt 99% of people who are functional would be starving to the point that they cannot buy food elsewhere.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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

I don't think they are entitled to serve you. Remember ye olde sign 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'. I think that should apply.

It does apply so long as service is not denied for any reasons listed in the CRA.

Although the good news is that even if the discrimination laws went away, in most places in the US anyone who publicly discriminates against race will be met with scorn, ridicule and lost business.

You're an ignorant fuck.

They'd certainly lose my business.

Yeah, right, you'd go to the hood for your groceries, I'd bet! LOL!

 

[Dante]

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

I don't think they are entitled to serve you. Remember ye olde sign 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'. I think that should apply.

It does apply so long as service is not denied for any reasons listed in the CRA.

Although the good news is that even if the discrimination laws went away, in most places in the US anyone who publicly discriminates against race will be met with scorn, ridicule and lost business.

You're an ignorant fuck.

They'd certainly lose my business.

Yeah, right, you'd go to the hood for your groceries, I'd bet! LOL!

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service:
Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers

 

[Anguille]

"Fit" Since when does equality have to fit?

You asked why someone would still patronise or want to patronize a restaurant run by racists. I answered your question, because people need to eat. I still have no idea what you are getting at with all your posturing.

I was speaking of laws in general.

Because people need to eat is the best you can come up with? I doubt 99% of people who are functional would be starving to the point that they cannot buy food elsewhere.

But why should they have too?

Why should some people be restricted as to where they can by food because of the color of their skin?

The best you've been able to come up with to defend your own stance is your smug statement that you pick and choose your battles. Clearly you never envision yourself being discriminated against. Perhaps you never will be. However such a fatuous and self centered additude merely reveals your narrow-mindedness. Racist policies harm us all, not just those at whom they are directed.

 

[Anguille]

That's what it's turned into. I look at it this way:

A business whether it be public or private owns or rents that piece of land. Therefore, as long as they not are infringing on someone else's rights, they should be able to do what they want on said land. Whether it may be smoking indoors, gambling, prostitution, having drugs, etc. Why? Because the business is their private property.

Yes, the businesses must be licensed by the state. However, the same can be said of individual homes to a degree. So now do people have any real rights if you look at it that way?

Smoking, prostitution, doing drugs, gambling...these are all recreational activities they are NOT civil rights.

But going out to eat at a restaurant is a civil right, and not at all recreational.

Eating out maybe only recreational to those like you who are fortunate enough to have the means to cook their own food.

 

[Modbert]

But why should they have too?

Why should some people be restricted as to where they can by food because of the color of their skin?

The best you've been able to come up with to defend your own stance is your smug statement that you pick and choose your battles. Clearly you never envision yourself being discriminated against. Perhaps you never will be. However such a fatuous and self centered additude merely reveals your narrow-mindedness. Racist policies harm us all, not just those at whom they are directed.

Choosing one's own battles is smug? No. It's called being smart when it comes to the establishment. You act like I've never been discriminated against, you don't know me. Don't act for one second with your self-righteous attitude that you think you know me and how I live my life.

I never said racism was morally right, it's morally wrong. However, this is America, and in America people have a right to be racist if they so choose.

What I find ultimately hilarious and ironic is your trying to legislate morality in this case. Except you wouldn't want such a thing to be done in the case of Abortion, and on other issues. I'm of the stance that anyone who has the opportunity to shop elsewhere and buys whatever from a racist is a complete moron.

You want to make racists truly suffer? Hit them where it hurts, their wallet. Nothing says learning a hard lesson when you go out of business because you refused to serve African Americans.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

But why should they have too?

Why should some people be restricted as to where they can by food because of the color of their skin?

The best you've been able to come up with to defend your own stance is your smug statement that you pick and choose your battles. Clearly you never envision yourself being discriminated against. Perhaps you never will be. However such a fatuous and self centered additude merely reveals your narrow-mindedness. Racist policies harm us all, not just those at whom they are directed.

Choosing one's own battles is smug? No. It's called being smart when it comes to the establishment. You act like I've never been discriminated against, you don't know me. Don't act for one second with your self-righteous attitude that you think you know me and how I live my life.

I never said racism was morally right, it's morally wrong. However, this is America, and in America people have a right to be racist if they so choose.

What I find ultimately hilarious and ironic is your trying to legislate morality in this case. Except you wouldn't want such a thing to be done in the case of Abortion, and on other issues. I'm of the stance that anyone who has the opportunity to shop elsewhere and buys whatever from a racist is a complete moron.

You want to make racists truly suffer? Hit them where it hurts, their wallet. Nothing says learning a hard lesson when you go out of business because you refused to serve African Americans.

Restaurant owners do not have the right to refuse service based on skin color. See the Civil Rights Act.