Property Rights and Racism

[paperview]

When all else fails make accusations of racism.

I never said you were racist, but damn, look at this post:

"People see it as horrible if you'd want to discriminate against somebody based on their race, and it is, but it's ok to discriminate against a member of the KKK. It's hypocritical, regardless of what the law is."

Sticking up for a group that has historically strung up black people in trees till thier eyes popped out and committed terrorist acts on whole communities...I gotta say, it's a flabbergaster.

Right. You weren't trying to insinuate I was racist.

Yes, members of the KKK have killed people. So have black people. So have janitors, and lawyers, and historians, etc...
...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I never said you were racist, but damn, look at this post:

"People see it as horrible if you'd want to discriminate against somebody based on their race, and it is, but it's ok to discriminate against a member of the KKK. It's hypocritical, regardless of what the law is."

Sticking up for a group that has historically strung up black people in trees till thier eyes popped out and committed terrorist acts on whole communities...I gotta say, it's a flabbergaster.

Right. You weren't trying to insinuate I was racist.

Yes, members of the KKK have killed people. So have black people. So have janitors, and lawyers, and historians, etc...
...

So I take it that you don't think it's hypocritical to protect the "rights" of only politically popular groups?

 

[Ravi]

I voted no.

A business that exists to serve the public has a duty to serve the public.

Owning a business does not suddenly give someone the right to violate someone else's civil rights.

 

[Middleman]

The scenario you presented is basically so hypothetical as to border on absurd, and you keep getting more absurd by then asking if it's ok for a restaurant to exclude Republicans or Democrats, etc...

In the first scenario, KKK people hate Blacks, correct? Why would they, then, go to a restaurant owned by a Black man, who could spit in his food if he wanted to? The Black man just happens to know that the guy is KKK, most likely because he lives in a small town, eh? Anyways, I voted yes, he can ask him to leave.

And, why in the world would a restaurant, in the business of making money, want to turn away half their customers based on political affiliation? The profit margin in the restaurant business is slim. If the restaurant wants to go out of business, then it can start arbitrarily turning people away and pissing off all their friends and neighbors.

There was a doctor somewhere back east who put a sign on his office suggesting Democrats who support National Healthcare to take their business elsewhere, it made the news but I think he had the right to post the sign, so yes, if the restaurant wants to tell people to shove it, I guess they have a right to most likely go out of business.

 

[Barb]

Nope. The Klan member shouldn't be surprised if the cook sneezes on his plate though. I was a cook. We had to serve assholes all the time. Never did anything to the food, mind you, but when one made my waitress cry I had to be restrained from leaving the kitchen.
All those knives...

 

[Barb]

It matters a great deal if you understand the Civil Rights Act.

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

I have not given you an answer, so don't presume.

The question is too vague...is the KKK member, who is a KNOWN organization that has literally KILLED black people - walks into a black owned restaurant, is he being disruptive?

Is he going in, sitting down and simply having a meal? Is he wearing a sign saying KKK?
You even mentioned "going in with their nightgown." Do they take off their White Sheet nightgown mask to eat, or do they just stuff it through the mouth hole?

Some time ago, a man was thrown out of the local shopping mall for having a t-shirt on advocating peace and an end to the war in Iraq. It was deemed legal on the grounds that it could create a disturbance.
Naturally, I disagreed. I think anyone should be served unless they, personally, create a disturbance

If the Klan member was insulting other patrons and creating a risk to himself or others, off he goes with or without the doggy-bag. Assholes are not a protected group.

But...as my favorite boss in the whole world told me one day, "Barb, if assholes had wings, this place would be a fucking airport. We can't bar all of them or we'd be out of business." I was allowed to issue death threats.

 

[Wry Catcher]

soph·is·try (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

There is no guarantee in the U.S. Constitution of a right to privacy. There is however the 14 Amendment (see paragraph #1) where the closest answer I've found seems to support my "No" vote in the poll:
"No state...shall...nor shall any state deprive any person of live, LIBERTY or property...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Businesses are licensed by the state, I suppose if Rand Paul chooses to run for governor, he might propose that the laws of Kentucky (It's Constitution) be amendment to authorize local communities licensing boards to authorize descrimination, thereby allowing owners of private property to exclude anyone they choose.
Hence like an owner wanting to sell alcohol s/he must post a sign outside their business notifying the general public of its business, and for those who chose to descriminate against another because of their race, creed or anyother characteristic, require them to post its policies for the general public.
What a wonderful way to tear apart a nation - only fools think the right of privacy as outlined by Paul is a good thing, fools and racists that is.

 

[Ravi]

soph·is·try (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

There is no guarantee in the U.S. Constitution of a right to privacy. There is however the 14 Amendment (see paragraph #1) where the closest answer I've found seems to support my "No" vote in the poll:
"No state...shall...nor shall any state deprive any person of live, LIBERTY or property...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Businesses are licensed by the state, I suppose if Rand Paul chooses to run for governor, he might propose that the laws of Kentucky (It's Constitution) be amendment to authorize local communities licensing boards to authorize descrimination, thereby allowing owners of private property to exclude anyone they choose.
Hence like an owner wanting to sell alcohol s/he must post a sign outside their business notifying the general public of its business, and for those who chose to descriminate against another because of their race, creed or anyother characteristic, require them to post its policies for the general public.
What a wonderful way to tear apart a nation - only fools think the right of privacy as outlined by Paul is a good thing, fools and racists that is.

He might want to do that but he cannot under the US constitution, as your posting of the 14th amendment shows.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The scenario you presented is basically so hypothetical as to border on absurd, and you keep getting more absurd by then asking if it's ok for a restaurant to exclude Republicans or Democrats, etc...

In the first scenario, KKK people hate Blacks, correct? Why would they, then, go to a restaurant owned by a Black man, who could spit in his food if he wanted to? The Black man just happens to know that the guy is KKK, most likely because he lives in a small town, eh? Anyways, I voted yes, he can ask him to leave.

And, why in the world would a restaurant, in the business of making money, want to turn away half their customers based on political affiliation? The profit margin in the restaurant business is slim. If the restaurant wants to go out of business, then it can start arbitrarily turning people away and pissing off all their friends and neighbors.

There was a doctor somewhere back east who put a sign on his office suggesting Democrats who support National Healthcare to take their business elsewhere, it made the news but I think he had the right to post the sign, so yes, if the restaurant wants to tell people to shove it, I guess they have a right to most likely go out of business.

Why would a black person want to go to a restaurant owned by a white supremacist?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes

 

[Intense]

Actually I think I made a pretty solid point. The law is supposed to end discrimination, but it only applies to politically popular groups. If the law were consistent it'd have to apply to every possible group there is. It would have to apply to Democrats, Republicans, KKK members, Black Panthers, any every other possible group there is.

Or we could just respect property rights and allow people to decide for themselves who they do business with on their own property.

The KKK is not a race. The KKK is not a gender. The KKK is not a religion.

Race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.

If you walked into my business, I could tell you to get out if you were apart of any political group. The same goes for the KKK as it does for the Black Panthers.

Try again.

is it Kevin's initials?

I wonder what his middle name is?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The KKK is not a race. The KKK is not a gender. The KKK is not a religion.



If you walked into my business, I could tell you to get out if you were apart of any political group. The same goes for the KKK as it does for the Black Panthers.

Try again.

is it Kevin's initials?

I wonder what his middle name is?

Kevin Keith Kennedy

 

[Intense]

is it Kevin's initials?

I wonder what his middle name is?

Kevin Keith Kennedy

That is a great name and explains much if you wear big Initialed belt buckles, or vanity license plates.

 

[nraforlife]

[..................... not protected under the Constitution. Neither is a Black Panthers affiliation. Both can legally be refused service.

Hmmm, what are most ALL BP's?

BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore, to deny service because of that affiliation would have dispariate impact and be illegal.

 

[Intense]

[..................... not protected under the Constitution. Neither is a Black Panthers affiliation. Both can legally be refused service.

Hmmm, what are most ALL BP's?

BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore, to deny service because of that affiliation would have dispariate impact and be illegal.

Wrong. You come into my hypothetical store and disrupt the atmosphere, You either leave by your will or mine. The dots you connect are false reasoning applied to what you imagine the Constitution to read. Though you are not alone in your imagining, you are misguided. We are all visitors in other peoples domains, I'd advise losing the attitudes and focusing on courtesy and politeness. It goes farther than wiping your feet on the merchants, and expecting every single thing your way, regardless of the needs of those around you.

 

[William Joyce]

Is the KKK a race, Kevin?

What does that matter? The restaurant is open to the public right? So all of the public should be allowed to eat there, including the KKK if we follow the logic that we've seen from you over the past few days.

The KKK Members affiliation is not protected under the Constitution. Neither is a Black Panthers affiliation. Both can legally be refused service.

Nice try, but no. You'd file your lawsuit claiming race discrimination. Blacks for years have bitched that whites have used covers, and they win. As a practical matter, you CANNOT simply say "I don't care they're black, I don't like their pants drooping", etc. and you will STILL GET SUED UP AND DOWN and... YOU WILL LOSE.

Got it?

So, it's kind of delicious to imagine blacks squirming over the KKK hypo.

 

[William Joyce]

So discrimination based on race, sex, disability is out in your opinion, but discrimination based on affiliation is ok? So a Republican restaurant owner could refuse to serve a Democrat? Say President Obama goes into a restaurant owned by a Republican, could they refuse to serve him?

I have not given you an answer, so don't presume.

The question is too vague...is the KKK member, who is a KNOWN organization that has literally KILLED black people - walks into a black owned restaurant, is he being disruptive?

Is he going in, sitting down and simply having a meal? Is he wearing a sign saying KKK?
You even mentioned "going in with their nightgown." Do they take off their White Sheet nightgown mask to eat, or do they just stuff it through the mouth hole?

Some time ago, a man was thrown out of the local shopping mall for having a t-shirt on advocating peace and an end to the war in Iraq. It was deemed legal on the grounds that it could create a disturbance.
Naturally, I disagreed. I think anyone should be served unless they, personally, create a disturbance.

No, you don't. If someone wore a Stormfront T-shirt to the store, and everyone starting freaking out, you wouldn't take his side. You'd say "well, he should be thrown out."

That's the problem. Whites don't have the same rights as blacks. Blacks can run through a restaurant whooping and creating a ruckus, but you dare not touch them. They'll bitch, sue, win. Whites can't even quietly and peacefully express pride, and if they do, the resulting blacks freaking out is THEIR fault.

Starting to understand why whites are pissed?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The scenario you presented is basically so hypothetical as to border on absurd, and you keep getting more absurd by then asking if it's ok for a restaurant to exclude Republicans or Democrats, etc...

In the first scenario, KKK people hate Blacks, correct? Why would they, then, go to a restaurant owned by a Black man, who could spit in his food if he wanted to? The Black man just happens to know that the guy is KKK, most likely because he lives in a small town, eh? Anyways, I voted yes, he can ask him to leave.

And, why in the world would a restaurant, in the business of making money, want to turn away half their customers based on political affiliation? The profit margin in the restaurant business is slim. If the restaurant wants to go out of business, then it can start arbitrarily turning people away and pissing off all their friends and neighbors.

There was a doctor somewhere back east who put a sign on his office suggesting Democrats who support National Healthcare to take their business elsewhere, it made the news but I think he had the right to post the sign, so yes, if the restaurant wants to tell people to shove it, I guess they have a right to most likely go out of business.

Why would a black person want to go to a restaurant owned by a white supremacist?

Gee, of course to meet white women. Isn't that why white men go to have soul food, to meet black women?

 

[Barb]

Starting to understand why whites are pissed?

Nope. Whine some more, maybe I'll understand. Probably not.

 

[William Joyce]

Starting to understand why whites are pissed?

Nope. Whine some more, maybe I'll understand. Probably not.

Caligula never did understand why he wasn't liked, but history moved on without him anyway.