Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Madeline]

Hey folks, do you seriously think that all you need to figure out US constitutional law is a good dose of common sense? None of us lawyers got our law degrees from The Law Degree Fairy, yanno. Certainly no US Supreme Court Justice did.

This is very complex law and it has been developing for over 200 years. No one can just "intuit" what Interstate Commerce/Equal Protection law actually is. You have to look shit up and read the decisions.

There's a reason law school is so hard, yanno.

 

[editec]

Hey folks, do you seriously think that all you need to figure out US constitutional law is a good dose of common sense? None of us lawyers got our law degrees from The Law Degree Fairy, yanno. Certainly no US Supreme Court Justice did.

This is very complex law and it has been developing for over 200 years. No one can just "intuit" what Interstate Commerce/Equal Protection law actually is. You have to look shit up and read the decisions.

There's a reason law school is so hard, yanno.

Some of my best friends were lawyers, and yes, while they don't appear to have much a sense of rhythm, I would let my sister marry one.

Yeah, I agree, Mad.

This is why I tend to eschew debates where people think they can BS about what the constiution says or means.

Of course, we can all express our opinions about what it SHOULD mean or say, but the self referential system of legal logic that the law employs isn't something that I, as a layman, really understand.

But you know...it never ceases to amaze me that so many people who I don't think are especially bright managed to get through law school.

I'm of the opinion that law school can be pretty difficult, but some rather high percentage of the lawyers I've known, didn't appear to know much about their world generally.

Guess they were so busy getting their professional degrees they didn't have enough time to really get educated.

However in defense of that profession, when I do find a lawyer who I think is truly smart, they tend to be delightfully entertaining people to know.

 

[midcan5]

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

Discrimination is legally different than a separation of sexes for privacy. You would need to define discrimination in your world, in my world racial profiling is discrimination.

Curves is across state lines as my wife used them in PA and NJ for a while. It is an interesting question though. And is sexual separation a discriminatory act? Or is it a cultural taboo/tradition? There are certain spas where you can go nude separate or together, and in Europe some bathrooms are co-ed. Most Americans are squeamish about topless beaches, can one imagine us all peeing and farting together?


http://clubindustry.com/mag/fitness_access_denied/

"According to the International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association (IHRSA), eight states have laws that allow single-sex health clubs: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wisconsin. A Pennsylvania court ruled in 1992 that one club's women-only policy did not violate the state's anti-discrimination law, but the state does not have a specific law allowing for single-sex health clubs."

 

[mudwhistle]

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 taking over businesses because they're too big to fail is a no-no. Right???

 

[Madeline]

Hey folks, do you seriously think that all you need to figure out US constitutional law is a good dose of common sense? None of us lawyers got our law degrees from The Law Degree Fairy, yanno. Certainly no US Supreme Court Justice did.

This is very complex law and it has been developing for over 200 years. No one can just "intuit" what Interstate Commerce/Equal Protection law actually is. You have to look shit up and read the decisions.

There's a reason law school is so hard, yanno.

Some of my best friends were lawyers, and yes, while they don't appear to have much a sense of rhythm, I would let my sister marry one.

Yeah, I agree, Mad.

This is why I tend to eschew debates where people think they can BS about what the constiution says or means.

Of course, we can all express our opinions about what it SHOULD mean or say, but the self referential system of legal logic that the law employs isn't something that I, as a layman, really understand.

But you know...it never ceases to amaze me that so many people who I don't think are especially bright managed to get through law school.

I'm of the opinion that law school can be pretty difficult, but some rather high percentage of the lawyers I've known, didn't appear to know much about their world generally.

Guess they were so busy getting their professional degrees they didn't have enough time to really get educated.

However in defense of that profession, when I do find a lawyer who I think is truly smart, they tend to be delightfully entertaining people to know.

editec, I think Intelligence comes in a variety of flavors. Law school is mainly about linguistics and logic and memorization. (TONS of memorization.) I'd imagine engineers have great spatial relationship skills and mechanical skills, and of course, artists have that ability to see the same thing everyone else sees in a completely new way. And on and on. Very few people are Intelligent In Every Flavor, but I've known quite a few lawyers who were Stupid in every one apart from that narrow and but-for-the-practice-of-law-totally-useless form of Intelligence they possess. I once successfully argued to a judge that two weeks and fourteen days are different time periods/measurements. What other profession would reward me for such goofiness?

I drove my car to the ocean often whilst in tax school, and one day after doing so it would not start. The six other lawyers in my study group gathered round it the next day, peering into the engine compartment. Their consensus was my car's electrical system had cancer. As in, a disease had infected my car and was spreading.

When my mechanic heard this he busted a gut laughing. And then he scrapped the salt off the battery cables and sent me on my way, free of charge.

100% true story. If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow most lawyers I know to drive a golf cart, and that includes me, I'm sadden to say. Driving a car is challenging if "left" and "right" befuddle you.

 

[Ravi]

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?

IMO, it is more in line with liberty to not allow businesses to violate anyone's civil rights. What is the point of having them if they can be violated.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

IMO, it is more in line with liberty to not allow businesses to violate anyone's civil rights. What is the point of having them if they can be violated.

If I don't hire someone, how am I violating their civil rights?

If I refuse to do business with another person or business, how am I violating their rights?

If a business owner only hires blond women with big tits is he violating the rights of all brunettes and flat chested women?

Should the government mandate a diversity of cup sizes in the workplace?

 

[Madeline]

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

Discrimination is legally different than a separation of sexes for privacy. You would need to define discrimination in your world, in my world racial profiling is discrimination.

Curves is across state lines as my wife used them in PA and NJ for a while. It is an interesting question though. And is sexual separation a discriminatory act? Or is it a cultural taboo/tradition? There are certain spas where you can go nude separate or together, and in Europe some bathrooms are co-ed. Most Americans are squeamish about topless beaches, can one imagine us all peeing and farting together?


Access Denied | Body Central fitness club

"According to the International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association (IHRSA), eight states have laws that allow single-sex health clubs: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wisconsin. A Pennsylvania court ruled in 1992 that one club's women-only policy did not violate the state's anti-discrimination law, but the state does not have a specific law allowing for single-sex health clubs."

There are many emerging areas of the business world that will require new US Supreme Court decisions, midcan. The Gang of Nine are not going to ever be "done" pronouncing on this subject.

 

[Ravi]

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?

IMO, it is more in line with liberty to not allow businesses to violate anyone's civil rights. What is the point of having them if they can be violated.

If I don't hire someone, how am I violating their civil rights?

No, no one has a right to be hired.

If I refuse to do business with another person or business, how am I violating their rights?

It depends on why you refuse to do business, IMO.

If a business owner only hires blond women with big tits is he violating the rights of all brunettes and flat chested women?

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

Should the government mandate a diversity of cup sizes in the workplace?

This one is just plain silly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO, it is more in line with liberty to not allow businesses to violate anyone's civil rights. What is the point of having them if they can be violated.

If I don't hire someone, how am I violating their civil rights?

No, no one has a right to be hired.

It depends on why you refuse to do business, IMO.

If a business owner only hires blond women with big tits is he violating the rights of all brunettes and flat chested women?

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

Should the government mandate a diversity of cup sizes in the workplace?

This one is just plain silly.

So if no one has a right to be hired then how is a business owner violating anyone's civil rights if he only hires from a certain race or gender?

How is he violating anyone's rights if he only does business with other people who only hire from a particular group?

If neither of those examples are a violation of another's rights then I do not understand your argument. Because I see this issue as the government has no right to tell private businesses how they should conduct their affairs.

 

[Ravi]

If I don't hire someone, how am I violating their civil rights?

No, no one has a right to be hired.

It depends on why you refuse to do business, IMO.

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

Should the government mandate a diversity of cup sizes in the workplace?

This one is just plain silly.

So if no one has a right to be hired then how is a business owner violating anyone's civil rights if he only hires from a certain race or gender?

How is he violating anyone's rights if he only does business with other people who only hire from a particular group?

If neither of those examples are a violation of another's rights then I do not understand your argument. Because I see this issue as the government has no right to tell private businesses how they should conduct their affairs.

I don't think anyone has a right to be hired. I do think that anyone has a right to be a customer of an establishment that is open to the public (unless they are obviously disgusting, drunk, or don't pay their bills).

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, no one has a right to be hired.

It depends on why you refuse to do business, IMO.

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

This one is just plain silly.

So if no one has a right to be hired then how is a business owner violating anyone's civil rights if he only hires from a certain race or gender?

How is he violating anyone's rights if he only does business with other people who only hire from a particular group?

If neither of those examples are a violation of another's rights then I do not understand your argument. Because I see this issue as the government has no right to tell private businesses how they should conduct their affairs.

I don't think anyone has a right to be hired. I do think that anyone has a right to be a customer of an establishment that is open to the public (unless they are obviously disgusting, drunk, or don't pay their bills).

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Ravi]

Okay.

I'll just add that I believe we have a right to associate and therefore a business that is open to the public cannot deny someone's right to be served.

A private club that requires membership is another matter.

 

[JWBooth]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

 

[Ravi]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

Thank you for regurgitating talking points.

 

[Madeline]

If I don't hire someone, how am I violating their civil rights?

No, no one has a right to be hired.

It depends on why you refuse to do business, IMO.

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

Should the government mandate a diversity of cup sizes in the workplace?

This one is just plain silly.

So if no one has a right to be hired then how is a business owner violating anyone's civil rights if he only hires from a certain race or gender?

How is he violating anyone's rights if he only does business with other people who only hire from a particular group?

If neither of those examples are a violation of another's rights then I do not understand your argument. Because I see this issue as the government has no right to tell private businesses how they should conduct their affairs.

Who you do and do not hire to work in your business is predominately a Labor Law question. Certain types of discrimination are facially illegal, meaning you best have a cover story for why you refused to hire flat-chested women, but the Interstate Commerce Clause does not fall as heavily on businesses as to their hiring practices.

In the main, it's all about refusal of service to customers. Mebbe illogical to you, but that's where things stand atm anyway.

 

[Skull Pilot]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

Thank you for regurgitating talking points.

You still haven't made your case that refusing to serve someone (anyone for any reason) is violating anyone's rights.

No one has the right to be served by a business.

 

[Ravi]

They have a right to associate. Barring someone from a restaurant that is open to the public violates that.

 

[Intense]

No, no one has a right to be hired.

It depends on why you refuse to do business, IMO.

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

This one is just plain silly.

So if no one has a right to be hired then how is a business owner violating anyone's civil rights if he only hires from a certain race or gender?

How is he violating anyone's rights if he only does business with other people who only hire from a particular group?

If neither of those examples are a violation of another's rights then I do not understand your argument. Because I see this issue as the government has no right to tell private businesses how they should conduct their affairs.

I don't think anyone has a right to be hired. I do think that anyone has a right to be a customer of an establishment that is open to the public (unless they are obviously disgusting, drunk, or don't pay their bills).

There are a lot more reasons than that Ravi. There are few that violate civil rights. We have health codes, dress codes, codes regarding pets. If she can bring her small dog in this Diner, why can't I bring my horse in??? No bare feet. No really offensive Body odor. No cell phones in the theater. Can't bring your own food into an establishment. Restrooms for paying customers only. No soliciting other customers. No smoking. No rude behavior. No Alcohol. No skate boarding, No Rollerskating. No running. No diving. No cut off shorts in the pool. No cutting in line. No cursing. We even have a law in NYC where adults not accompanied with children are not allowed in certain areas of parks, if it hasn't been changed yet, because of it's absurdity.

 

[Intense]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

Thank you for regurgitating talking points.

You still haven't made your case that refusing to serve someone (anyone for any reason) is violating anyone's rights.

No one has the right to be served by a business.

The Supreme Court has, though it is very limited. There are specific reasons why one may not deny service. I may not deny service to a customer because of Race. I may deny service because of conditions, like infestation, communicable disease, hazard, threat, implied threat, abuse.

Does a person with hepatitis A, B, or C, have a Civil Right to handle food in a Restaurant? How about someone with lesions and open sores?