Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[JBeukema]

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

You enter into a legally binding verbally implied contract when you order your food with the understanding that you are trading that food for money.

That's why the Law can get involved in the matter, even if it's rarely invoked. You agree to make a purchase- the agreement is a contract and the obligation you incur (to pay for the product received) is legally binding.


Not all contracts are written. at least in this State, verbal contracts are also binding, even though the nature of such contracts make them difficult to enforce and the Law is generally not invoked.

 

[Madeline]

Sorry, but a restaurant is engaged in interstate commerce. A fundamental right is the right to travel freely, and restaurants refusing service based on color violate this right. If you want to see the effects of such bigotry, just look back in history at all the black musicians and athletes who couldn't eat at a restaurant with the white band or team they were traveling with, or who could not find accommodations and had to sleep in the fucking bus. This is the United States - we don't have 2nd class citizens here. The 14th amendment clearly protects the right to travel regardless of race, and it clearly grants Congress the authority to protect this right. You don't like it, renounce your citizenship.

This just shows how fucked up the interpretation of the constitution has gotten, and how much people have to stretch language to justify their fucked up logic.

If I own a restaurant the only way I would be involved in interstate commerce would be if my restaurant somehow crossed state lines to do business. It does not matter if I own the most famous restaurant in the world, there is no way that would happen unless I actively shipped my meals to people in other states.

You cannot sell a processed food product together with personal service in the US and not use goods and services created and sold and shipped to you via -- viola'! -- Interstate Commerce. It just cannot be done, Quantum Windbag.

Are you suggesting it is FUBAR to require that restaurants stop denying service to people whose skin color they don't like?

You can still deny such people entrance to private clubs, including private supper clubs, but you'll need a lawyer to help you design the business plan. Mess it up in some minor detail, and -- Bingo! -- the law will regard you as a public place in violation of the Equal Protection clause.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Does not such a loophole render the law meaningless. What if membership is free? I can choose to allow or deny anyone who enters membership based on their race or sex and hand them a business card- sorry, membership card. If they lose it, they get a free replacement when they rejoin during their next visit.

 

[JBeukema]

What liberty do you have if you are forced to work for someone you don't want to?

I think we got rid of that pesky little thing called slavery years ago.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the subject at hand

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

Depends on the right.

Freedom of speech? Generally, yes. You can't say whatever you want in a restaurant. The owner could in fact, allow you to talk about one side of an issue, but not another, if he chose.

But a restaurant cannot impair the right of people to travel based on race - and because of this, they are not allowed to refuse service based on race.

 

[JBeukema]

There is no right to travel on or through private property.

If there were, I'd not be allowed to put up a fence or lock my door.

 

[Madeline]

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.

Does not such a loophole render the law meaningless. What if membership is free? I can choose to allow or deny anyone who enters membership based on their race or sex and hand them a business card- sorry, membership card. If they lose it, they get a free replacement when they rejoin during their next visit.

All these tokens have been tried and all have failed. Bear in mind, people who want alcohol but live in dry counties have a VERY powerful motive to find some way to operate a bar without a liquor license. But yet they cannot -- not and allow in all their potential customers anyway. The members have to give up something that matters. They have to hurt. If it is meaningless, the law disregards it.

I don't know exactly what is needed to keep the local White Supremacists Supper Club out of hot water, but it is much more than a dollar per person per visit...that wouldn't even pass the small test.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There is no right to travel on or through private property.

Restaurants and hotels service people traveling across public lands (roads for instance).

 

[JBeukema]

There is no right to travel on or through private property.

Restaurants and hotels service people traveling across public lands (roads for instance).

The land and building are not privately owned and operated?

I better inform the guy who owns the building where I work and the private real-estate company that owns the land it's on and leases it to him.

Everyone travels across public lands every day- but they have to stop when they reach private property unless they have permission to be on it.

 

[Madeline]

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?

Depends on the right.

Freedom of speech? Generally, yes. You can't say whatever you want in a restaurant. The owner could in fact, allow you to talk about one side of an issue, but not another, if he chose.

But a restaurant cannot impair the right of people to travel based on race - and because of this, they are not allowed to refuse service based on race.

I dunno about that, Spiderman Tuba. The owner can exclude you if you try to excersize your right to bear arms inside his restaurant, but not because you'll have a confab he does not like if he seats you. You have to conform your conduct to the ambience of the place and not disturb others. But if we wanted to dine at Tavern On The Green to discuss the Joys of Anarchy in a low tones, I don't think we could be ejected merely because the owner is not a pink-o sympathizer.

Remember, that restaurant is a public place and we are excersizing our Right to Privacy at our table as well as our Right to Free Speech.

This is the funniest thread going on USMB tonight. Who is to be congratulated for beginning it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There is no right to travel on or through private property.

Restaurants and hotels service people traveling across public lands (roads for instance).

The land and building are not privately owned and operated?

They are but they are engaging in interstate commerce by deriving their business directly from travelers.

I better inform the guy who owns the building where I work and the private real-estate company that owns the land it's on and leases it to him.

Is it a restaurant or hotel or truck stop or gas station or something otherwise directly involved in travel?

Everyone travels across public lands every day- but they have to stop when they reach private property unless they have permission to be on it.

Do you actually obtain permission from a restaurant owner before you go inside his restaurant, or do you just walk in unannounced like most people do?


Listen, if yo don't agree with me, you should really take it up with the courts. I can't help you, you can bitch and whine about how its such a horrible injustice that hotel owners can't post signs saying "No ******* Allowed!" - but its not going to do a damn bit a good unless you bring it to a judge.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

Depends on the right.

Freedom of speech? Generally, yes. You can't say whatever you want in a restaurant. The owner could in fact, allow you to talk about one side of an issue, but not another, if he chose.

But a restaurant cannot impair the right of people to travel based on race - and because of this, they are not allowed to refuse service based on race.

I dunno about that, Spiderman Tuba. The owner can exclude you if you try to excersize your right to bear arms inside his restaurant, but not because you'll have a confab he does not like if he seats you. You have to conform your conduct to the ambience of the place and not disturb others. But if we wanted to dine at Tavern On The Green to discuss the Joys of Anarchy in a low tones, I don't think we could be ejected merely because the owner is not a pink-o sympathizer.

Remember, that restaurant is a public place and we are excersizing our Right to Privacy at our table as well as our Right to Free Speech.

This is the funniest thread going on USMB tonight. Who is to be congratulated for beginning it?

There is no expectation of privacy of speech when sitting 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?

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."

The rest of your post is a amusing but the part I highlighted is the only pertinent statement.

Why is it true and is it true? I cannot forbid you to own a gun, join a religion or speak your mind. That would violate your civil rights...therefore an individual can violate someone's civil rights. (Didn't OJ get convicted of violating his wife's civil rights?)

And you have to keep in mind that WE are the government.

 

[JBeukema]

They are but they are engaging in interstate commerce by deriving their business directly from travelers.

Even if only the locals eat there?

You make absolute statements and show yourself to be a fool.

I better inform the guy who owns the building where I work and the private real-estate company that owns the land it's on and leases it to him.

Is it a restaurant or hotel or truck stop or gas station or something otherwise directly involved in travel?

Not really. Others nearby even less so-hell, some only buy products from farmers in the State.

Face it, you have no argument with this 'interstate commerce' line.

Need some help?

[T]he correct response is to make the case that the restriction of the business owners' liberties were necessitated and justified by the need to break a pervasive system of oppression and dehumanization of an entire race. The lesser of two evils, if you will.

Do you actually obtain permission from a restaurant owner before you go inside his restaurant, or do you just walk in unannounced like most people do?

As an employee, permission is granted.

Permission is implied when we turn the 'open' light on and can be revoked at any time when we tell you to GTFO. When we lock the doors, it's clear that we will specify who is allowed, rather than who is not. During business hours, given the lenient policies regarding admission where I work, it's easier to state who's not invited in, such as with the 'No Shirt, No Shoe, No service' sign or by informing a particular individual or group to leave.

Permission need not be specifically stated to each individual, when it is made clear [eg: the 'COME ON IN!' sign] that one is welcome unless otherwise specified.

 

[Madeline]

Depends on the right.

Freedom of speech? Generally, yes. You can't say whatever you want in a restaurant. The owner could in fact, allow you to talk about one side of an issue, but not another, if he chose.

But a restaurant cannot impair the right of people to travel based on race - and because of this, they are not allowed to refuse service based on race.

I dunno about that, Spiderman Tuba. The owner can exclude you if you try to excersize your right to bear arms inside his restaurant, but not because you'll have a confab he does not like if he seats you. You have to conform your conduct to the ambience of the place and not disturb others. But if we wanted to dine at Tavern On The Green to discuss the Joys of Anarchy in a low tones, I don't think we could be ejected merely because the owner is not a pink-o sympathizer.

Remember, that restaurant is a public place and we are excersizing our Right to Privacy at our table as well as our Right to Free Speech.

This is the funniest thread going on USMB tonight. Who is to be congratulated for beginning it?

There is no expectation of privacy of speech when sitting in a restaurant.

There are legal limits to wire tapping by long distance microphones, Spiderman Tuba. If I'm your guest at dinner, I can tape you but I cannot sit outside Tavern On The Green with a super-sensitive microphone and collect your conversation with a party having nothing to do with me, under most circumstances. If I am a policeman or a police agent, my limits are even stricter.

There are some limited Rights to Privacy in public settings, but I'll admit it is a very gray area.

 

[Madeline]

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."

The rest of your post is a amusing but the part I highlighted is the only pertinent statement.

Why is it true and is it true? I cannot forbid you to own a gun, join a religion or speak your mind. That would violate your civil rights...therefore an individual can violate someone's civil rights. (Didn't OJ get convicted of violating his wife's civil rights?)

And you have to keep in mind that WE are the government.

Of course it is not true. No one can run a public restaurant in the US as a "whites only lunch counter". Anymore than you could run a ferry boat business and refuse to cart nonwhites. Of all the businesses in the stream of Interstate Commerce, all forms of eateries, transport and hotel are subjected to the very highest degree of scrutiny as to Equal Protection because their customers are themselves involved (or could be) in Interstate Commerce.

This is a blast-o-fun thread. All these posts and still, the conversation seems to be at a pretty consistent level of civility. It's even interesting.

 

[Madeline]

They are but they are engaging in interstate commerce by deriving their business directly from travelers.

Even if only the locals eat there?

You make absolute statements and show yourself to be a fool.

Is it a restaurant or hotel or truck stop or gas station or something otherwise directly involved in travel?

Not really. Others nearby even less so-hell, some only buy products from farmers in the State.

Face it, you have no argument with this 'interstate commerce' line.

Need some help?

[T]he correct response is to make the case that the restriction of the business owners' liberties were necessitated and justified by the need to break a pervasive system of oppression and dehumanization of an entire race. The lesser of two evils, if you will.

Do you actually obtain permission from a restaurant owner before you go inside his restaurant, or do you just walk in unannounced like most people do?

As an employee, permission is granted.

Permission is implied when we turn the 'open' light on and can be revoked at any time when we tell you to GTFO. When we lock the doors, it's clear that we will specify who is allowed, rather than who is not. During business hours, given the lenient policies regarding admission where I work, it's easier to state who's not invited in, such as with the 'No Shirt, No Shoe, No service' sign or by informing a particular individual or group to leave.

Permission need not be specifically stated to each individual, when it is made clear [eg: the 'COME ON IN!' sign] that one is welcome unless otherwise specified.

The US Supreme Court disagrees, JB. If it is a business, it is Interstate Commerce, more or less. The private club exception is the only one I know of, and that's why country clubs that will not admit Jews are still legal.

I suppose if you opened a massage parlor using furniture you inherited and premises you owned outright, and wanted to massage only whites who had lived near you for 100 years, mebbe. Probably you could not legally discriminate (unless as a private club), but mebbe.

But if you fling oil on your customers, no dice. That product (the oil) is Interstate Commerce-kissed and now, so are you.

 

[paperview]

They are but they are engaging in interstate commerce by deriving their business directly from travelers.

Even if only the locals eat there?

You make absolute statements and show yourself to be a fool.

Is it a restaurant or hotel or truck stop or gas station or something otherwise directly involved in travel?

Not really. Others nearby even less so-hell, some only buy products from farmers in the State.

Face it, you have no argument with this 'interstate commerce' line.

[/quote]

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

 

[Madeline]

Aha! I smell another J.D. degree, paperwhite.

Great cite.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 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)?

I didn't realize the right to be served lunch even existed.

I am being flip to prove a point.

It is not a wise business decision to discriminate. But Being stupid is not a crime. Because I support liberal principles, I cannot say a man does not have a right to run his business however he sees fit.

If a business owner only hires blonds with big tits, it's none of my business. Just as a Black business owner only hiring black men is none of my business.

I would not patronize a business that did not serve anyone able to pay I have that right. So what's more in line with the idea that people should have the liberty to make these decisions in their own lives; Letting people decide how they will run their businesses and then let the public decide if they want to patronize any private business or the government forcing people to run their businesses in a certain way?