Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[George Costanza]

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?

So long as a private business is involved in, or in any way affects, interstate commerce, that business cannot violate anyone's civil rights. SpidermanTuba has it right.

If you can think of a business that is not involved in interstate commerce in any way, then go to it. Until then, if you as a private business owner violate someone's civil rights, NO SOUP FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!!

Curves is a business that definitely crosses state lines, yet it, as has been pointed out, deliberately discriminates against men. As I believe this is legal I will ask you to explain why they can get away with something that is clearly discriminatory if your view is correct.

First off, implementation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in order to prevent private organizations from violating the civil rights of citizens is not "my view" - it is an established, legal principle, developed by a series of lesser court and US Supreme Court decisions, culminating in Congress' enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Take a look at this from Wiki:

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

With regard to Curves, in the first place, I am not so sure that Curves is a business that operates primarily in interstate commerce. Yes, they have locations in more than one state. But I suspect that most of the clients at one location, live locally and do not cross state lines in order to work out at that particular spot. (Of course, if membership in a Los Angeles Curves location is also usable at a Curves location in New Orleans, then I suppose they are operating in interstate commerce.)

Secondly, even if Curves IS engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, I am not sure that "discriminating" against men exists when there is, obviously, a valid reason for not allowing men to sign up, i.e., the Curves program is designed for women, not men (I would assume). I think, when there is some rational basis for excluding a particular segment of society from membership or participation in a particular club or business, the club or business can do it and not be subjet to claims of civil rights violations. (How The Masters has escaped all these years is a mystery to me.)

Try suing your local Women's Gym because they won't give you a job handing out towels in the showers and see how far you get. (You won't get very far at all. I know. I tried it. )

 

[Intense]

Who or what denies someone a meal because of their race or color?

Ron Pauls crazy ass son.

Elaborate or decipher, you pick.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So then you're in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Did I say that?

More or less, when you said: "Then there are the idiots that think violating one person's civil rights is perfectly fine, as long as it promotes their agenda."

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.

 

[paperview]

Did I say that?

More or less, when you said: "Then there are the idiots that think violating one person's civil rights is perfectly fine, as long as it promotes their agenda."

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.

 

[Zander]

Can a man join a female only athletic club like "Curves". Why not? Why can "Curves" exclude men from joining? Why can a country club exclude non-members from eating at the restaurant or playing golf on it's course? It's not fair!!! Why can the United Negro College Fund exclude whites from scholarships? Why can the Masters exclude woman from joining?? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Privacy in the first case, financial support for the enterprise in the second case, long term discrimination in the third (although if we go back far enough...), Masters? thought that was qualifying? Am i wrong?

Discrimination in public services is a bit different for most freedom loving Americans. And unless the business is suspended above earth it is a public structure.

So you are OK with discrimination, as long as it's the "right kind" of discrimination? Got it!

 

[Intense]

More or less, when you said: "Then there are the idiots that think violating one person's civil rights is perfectly fine, as long as it promotes their agenda."

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.

Businesses are open to the public within the law on their terms. You violate those terms, they have the right to refuse service and remove you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So long as a private business is involved in, or in any way affects, interstate commerce, that business cannot violate anyone's civil rights. SpidermanTuba has it right.

If you can think of a business that is not involved in interstate commerce in any way, then go to it. Until then, if you as a private business owner violate someone's civil rights, NO SOUP FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!!

Curves is a business that definitely crosses state lines, yet it, as has been pointed out, deliberately discriminates against men. As I believe this is legal I will ask you to explain why they can get away with something that is clearly discriminatory if your view is correct.

First off, implementation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in order to prevent private organizations from violating the civil rights of citizens is not "my view" - it is an established, legal principle, developed by a series of lesser court and US Supreme Court decisions, culminating in Congress' enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Take a look at this from Wiki:

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

With regard to Curves, in the first place, I am not so sure that Curves is a business that operates primarily in interstate commerce. Yes, they have locations in more than one state. But I suspect that most of the clients at one location, live locally and do not cross state lines in order to work out at that particular spot. (Of course, if membership in a Los Angeles Curves location is also usable at a Curves location in New Orleans, then I suppose they are operating in interstate commerce.)

Secondly, even if Curves IS engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, I am not sure that "discriminating" against men exists when there is, obviously, a valid reason for not allowing men to sign up, i.e., the Curves program is designed for women, not men (I would assume). I think, when there is some rational basis for excluding a particular segment of society from membership or participation in a particular club or business, the club or business can do it and not be subjet to claims of civil rights violations. (How The Masters has escaped all these years is a mystery to me.)

Try suing your local Women's Gym because they won't give you a job handing out towels in the showers and see how far you get. (You won't get very far at all. I know. I tried it. )

I am happy to see you have a rational answer to the question. I love to see how lawyers can twist themselves in knots to justify apparent contradictions in their legal positions.

That said, I think you are probably correct on both counts. I cannot claim that Curves memberships are good across state lines, or even in the same city, for that matter. Even if they are, that does not negate the fact that they can exhibit a valid reason for prohibiting men to enter.

Regardless, as long as they do not allow anyone to walk in off the street and use their facilities, they are not guilty of violating anyone's civil rights, even if they do engage in interstate commerce.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More or less, when you said: "Then there are the idiots that think violating one person's civil rights is perfectly fine, as long as it promotes their agenda."

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.

I see we agree entirely.

 

[paperview]

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.

Businesses are open to the public within the law on their terms. You violate those terms, they have the right to refuse service and remove you.

As long as those terms do not segregate or discriminate because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

[Intense]

Curves is a business that definitely crosses state lines, yet it, as has been pointed out, deliberately discriminates against men. As I believe this is legal I will ask you to explain why they can get away with something that is clearly discriminatory if your view is correct.

First off, implementation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in order to prevent private organizations from violating the civil rights of citizens is not "my view" - it is an established, legal principle, developed by a series of lesser court and US Supreme Court decisions, culminating in Congress' enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Take a look at this from Wiki:

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

With regard to Curves, in the first place, I am not so sure that Curves is a business that operates primarily in interstate commerce. Yes, they have locations in more than one state. But I suspect that most of the clients at one location, live locally and do not cross state lines in order to work out at that particular spot. (Of course, if membership in a Los Angeles Curves location is also usable at a Curves location in New Orleans, then I suppose they are operating in interstate commerce.)

Secondly, even if Curves IS engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, I am not sure that "discriminating" against men exists when there is, obviously, a valid reason for not allowing men to sign up, i.e., the Curves program is designed for women, not men (I would assume). I think, when there is some rational basis for excluding a particular segment of society from membership or participation in a particular club or business, the club or business can do it and not be subjet to claims of civil rights violations. (How The Masters has escaped all these years is a mystery to me.)

Try suing your local Women's Gym because they won't give you a job handing out towels in the showers and see how far you get. (You won't get very far at all. I know. I tried it. )

I am happy to see you have a rational answer to the question. I love to see how lawyers can twist themselves in knots to justify apparent contradictions in their legal positions.

That said, I think you are probably correct on both counts. I cannot claim that Curves memberships are good across state lines, or even in the same city, for that matter. Even if they are, that does not negate the fact that they can exhibit a valid reason for prohibiting men to enter.

Regardless, as long as they do not allow anyone to walk in off the street and use their facilities, they are not guilty of violating anyone's civil rights, even if they do engage in interstate commerce.

Logic would dictate that the facilities are for members only. The charter would speculate female only. The only real challenge would be Trans gender and the gender confused or undecided. Hung Jury or not, chances are some of that would in time resolve itself.

 

[George Costanza]

I love to see how lawyers can twist themselves in knots to justify apparent contradictions in their legal positions.

We try . . . . .

 

[Ravi]

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?

Believe it or not, you do not have a civil right to enter private property. Many country clubs and private clubs limit their membership, and thus their customer base, on whatever criteria they choose. Like it or not, SCOTUS is the one who said this, so you have to live with it. (If you accept the rules of some posters here, you have to accept it.) The case law is a bit complicated, but the result is that any private club has the right to refuse service to anyone as long as they are not normally open to the public.

I'm talking about places that are open to the public.

 

[Ravi]

A Business has the right to serve who ever they please, the recourse is to make it known who they refuse and let public opinion drive their decisions.

Why? Explain how a business can violate someone's civil rights when neither the government nor an individual can.

Consider the perspective that pretty much every contract we sign limits choice, ability, freedom, by design. Sometimes both party's are effected, most times the Individual may get the shorter end of the stick, which is the price or cost of a needed service. You are not going in blind when you sign a cell phone contract, for example.

Put down the crack pipe...you don't sign a contract to eat in a restaurant.

 

[Ravi]

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?

So long as a private business is involved in, or in any way affects, interstate commerce, that business cannot violate anyone's civil rights. SpidermanTuba has it right.

If you can think of a business that is not involved in interstate commerce in any way, then go to it. Until then, if you as a private business owner violate someone's civil rights, NO SOUP FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!!

Curves is a business that definitely crosses state lines, yet it, as has been pointed out, deliberately discriminates against men. As I believe this is legal I will ask you to explain why they can get away with something that is clearly discriminatory if your view is correct.

Curves is a private club, not an establishment that is open to the public. One pays membership fees to use their equipment. A bad example.

 

[George Costanza]

Curves is a private club, not an establishment that is open to the public. One pays membership fees to use their equipment. A bad example.

Interesting (and I think important) distinction. (One that I had overlooked, BTW.)

 

[Zander]

So long as a private business is involved in, or in any way affects, interstate commerce, that business cannot violate anyone's civil rights. SpidermanTuba has it right.

If you can think of a business that is not involved in interstate commerce in any way, then go to it. Until then, if you as a private business owner violate someone's civil rights, NO SOUP FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!!

Curves is a business that definitely crosses state lines, yet it, as has been pointed out, deliberately discriminates against men. As I believe this is legal I will ask you to explain why they can get away with something that is clearly discriminatory if your view is correct.

Curves is a private club, not an establishment that is open to the public. One pays membership fees to use their equipment. A bad example.

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.

 

[Intense]

Why? Explain how a business can violate someone's civil rights when neither the government nor an individual can.

Consider the perspective that pretty much every contract we sign limits choice, ability, freedom, by design. Sometimes both party's are effected, most times the Individual may get the shorter end of the stick, which is the price or cost of a needed service. You are not going in blind when you sign a cell phone contract, for example.

Put down the crack pipe...you don't sign a contract to eat in a restaurant.

Calm down Ravi, I'm talking generally. You sign obligations all the time that limit or forfeit rights.

You want to talk specific, now is a good time to start. Be specific. Who's rights were violated by who? When? where?

 

[paperview]

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.

This post belongs on a gay marriage thread.

 

[Ravi]

Curves is a business that definitely crosses state lines, yet it, as has been pointed out, deliberately discriminates against men. As I believe this is legal I will ask you to explain why they can get away with something that is clearly discriminatory if your view is correct.

Curves is a private club, not an establishment that is open to the public. One pays membership fees to use their equipment. A bad example.

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.

 

[Intense]

Curves is a private club, not an establishment that is open to the public. One pays membership fees to use their equipment. A bad example.

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.

I think it's more that you are obsessed with crack. Don't you know to stay away from crap like that Ravi?

Where do you see people being discriminated against, who, how, why, and where, or is this hypothetical?