South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Allowed To Ban Colored People

[LoneLaugher]

Why would any respectable business actually ban black people? That is frankly the ultimate dumbest thing I've really ever heard of. Please explain the sick twisted reasoning behind why and decent American would actually do this. Jeez wake up.

Who said they'd be decent?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

One fist is punching up the other is punching down....

One fist had over 300 years or governmental support to make their power felt by ways of institutionalized murder -- the other fist came about in direct opposition to that -- but other than that, they are both equally racist

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Why would any respectable business actually ban black people? That is frankly the ultimate dumbest thing I've really ever heard of. Please explain the sick twisted reasoning behind why and decent American would actually do this. Jeez wake up.

Because freedom or something?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

Kansas City, a liberal city. Run by liberals. Regulated by liberals. Trys to prevent blacks from going into the nicer districts and shopping centers by using dress codes (no baggy pants, no gang colors, no bandannas, etc) and curfews for inner city blacks.

What say you?

I don't respect racists, people who try to make excuses for racists and people who are dishonest.

1. White kids wear baggy pants, bandannas, etc --- now if those dress codes are only enforced on black kids and not white kids -- that is discrimination.
2. The curfews are in 5 entertainment districts -- if that curfew is only enforced against black kids and not white kids -- that would be discrimination.

You assuming liberal politicians can't also be discriminatory is just your stupid assumption -- but as usual, your whata-boutsim failed -- and you have shown me to be one of those three classes of people I don't respect.

Those policies were put into effect SPECIFICALLY to combat a specific segment of society. Your rationalization does not dispute that fact. Blacks were causing major problems in those areas and that is how the liberal politicians tried to tackle the problem. Ignoring the fact that it applies to others despite the others not being the catalyst for the policies is nothing more than lying to yourself.

Yea, blacks are usually the cause of most problems -- guess on second thought, we should not only discriminate against them -- but quarantine them too -- hopefully someone will be brave enough to run on that platform

I see. Can't argue the merits so just fling shit in an effort to not look beat.

 

[Lysistrata]

Will someone please explain the origin of any "strongly held belief" in targeting another group of people and where such belief would come from? Time for some answers.

 

[OldLady]

I think the best way to marginalize these cockroaches is to shine a light on them. It ain't pretty, it ain't easy, but it's better than letting them fester. It's partially what gave us TRUMP.
.

What gave us Trump should inform you that we could easily return to the days of Whites Only lunch counters, and that such businesses would thrive again.

I doubt it. When in doubt, I always defer to freedom of expression.

I want to know how the crazies are, and who agrees with them.
.

Why? Are you going to boycott them? Call them racists? Do anything?

You know who the racists are here at USMB. What have you done to help them evolve?

By all means, have at it. Best of luck.

Was. Not. Talking. To. You.

Well, ******* excuse me, your Grace.

 

[Dana7360]

What gave us Trump should inform you that we could easily return to the days of Whites Only lunch counters, and that such businesses would thrive again.

Most businesses care about only their bottom line and would not want such bad publicity anyways. Very few businesses (and no large businesses with shareholders) are going to be discriminating against anyone. That would be bad for business in today's day and age.

We have had a zillion topics about bakeries and wedding planners who won't serve gays. Those businesses have had money pouring in to help support their cause.

Their bigotry has not been bad for their businesses at all. They are held up as heroes on Fox News and all the usual pseudocon propagandists.

Anyone who doubts how easily we could revert back to the Whites Only days is willfully blind.

If you were to live in reality ville, you would be able to see that these instances are few and far between, but the media likes to hype them up to upset people like you. MOST business owners are interested in that their customers are paying and buying something, not what their color, sex or sexual preferences.

Most isn't all.

I've been to places in our nation that have only one store. The one and only gas station is part of that store. There isn't even a post office.

I'm just driving through on my way to some place. I need gas. There's no other store or gas station for hundreds of miles of desert.

But oh no. Bummer. Because not all business but most, will sell to everyone I've had the very bad luck to need gas in a place that refuses to sell it to me because I'm a woman.

What am I supposed to do? Drive my car until I run out of gas in the middle of no where desert Nevada and home that someone will drive by with water and gas to help me? How many nights out in that desert should I have to endure because the owner of that one and only place to get gas refuses to sell it to me.

Am I supposed to plan my travels around who will serve me or where I want to go?

Since so many utilities have been privatized now, what is a person supposed to do if a private utility refuses to sell to them and discriminate them?

Are people supposed to live where they can actually have the services and goods to live? Are people supposed to check out everywhere to find out if they can have the same services and life others have?

Or should people be free to be able to live where they choose, where there's good jobs, good schools and a good way of life?

You don't realize that just because MOST businesses won't discriminate that it leaves some who do and those who do have a big impact on people. Excusing those who do by saying most won't causes a lot of trouble for our nation.

How would you feel if someone told you they won't sell you electricity because you're a woman? Or won't sell you gas because you're a woman? Or won't hire you because you're a woman? Or won't sell you food and water because you're a woman?

People are free to live how they want and to live in any state they want. You are worried about maybe less than 0.1% of all businesses.

So it's ok for that 1% to discriminate.

Thankfully our constitution and supreme court doesn't agree with you.

I've given you examples of how that harms people and you just ignore it.

I see it's still a waste of time to try to have a discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

 

[sakinago]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

I happen to agree with him, it’s both a property rights issue as well as a freedom of speech issue. That doesn’t mean I agree with people who would make decisions to not serve based on race, beliefs, whatever. A. It’s morally wrong, B. It’s a terrible business model. The government is the only thing that can make impositions, not the market. About a year ago a coffee shop in Seattle, I believe, kicked out a pro life group, and I think they should have every right too, even though I disagree with it. I think a Palestinian baker, cobbler, whatever the **** they are, has right to kick out a Zionist customer, if they so choose. I think a Muslim baker has the same right as a Christian baker to say no to making a gay wedding cake. I think a gay baker has the right to say **** off to a member of the West-Boro Baptist Church. Black business owner should be able to say **** off to the cops or a white privileged person, Vegan to a butcher, vis-versa whatever scenario you can think of.

There was at one point, an argument at least, that could be made for the civil rights act as applied in these matters with business owners. I still disagree with it on principle, but I am also sympathetic to it. In this day and age, if a store owner had a “no blacks allowed” policy, that store would be out of business in a week. A. It’d be all over the news B. The vast majority of people who think that’s fucked up would boycott it, C. The very few people who don’t would be scared to even be seen in that business. The tolerance for racism in this country is so low, look at how fast Roseanne got booted. It was like not even 24 hours...and that was the highest rated show on TV.

I’m sure the OP has no problem with what the coffee shop did?

The pro life activists shouldn't have been kicked out -- and they are well in their rights to seek legal recourse -- unfortunately, if they were not kicked out -- they would have been very disappointed -- you would think handing out pamphlets to customers of aborted babies should be welcome in any establishment -- but I see you left that part out.

I am equally convinced that if a group of Atheists went into a Chik-Fil A passing out anti-Christian pamphlets -- good chance they may get kicked out too ...

We can do the tit for tat game all day -- but question -- what does an abortion rights activist look like? can you recognize them when you see them?

If that business had a sign that says "No Abortion Rights Activists" -- could you pass for a "Non Abortion Rights" person if you really wanted a Starbucks coffee? Even if the sign said "No Gays" -- "No Irish" -- "No Jews" -- it is still conceivable for someone to pass if they really wanted that cup of coffee

but when the sign says "No Blacks" "No Asians" -- it becomes harder to pass

Which is why I always scoff at people who like to pontificate on how the free market would had corrected discrimination in the 60's without the Civil Rights Act--

No chic-fil-a would not kick out atheist customers handing out pamphlets. It’s owned by a Christian, that doesn’t mean that every store doubles as a fundamentalist cathedral. Its a friggen franchise, the most “Christian” thing they do as a company is they aren’t open on sundays, sue them. It’s fairly silly to assume chic-fil-a would do that, unless it fell under the umbrella of solicitation or something like that, that any other store would also excercise. Whatever, smh, moving on.

And the ease of identification of a certain group has zero to do with the issue. Some business owner makes an almost imossibly enforceable rule like “no-one from Irish decent allowed.” So because it’s a harder rule to enforce it’s more okay with you? In principle it’s still a fucked up rule to have.

And no I never once claimed that we could correct discrimination, because that’s definitely not gonna happen any time soon. Nor did the civil rights act correct discrimination. It’s an act that discriminates by nature, and the government is really the only institution that can impose onto others. A business owner cannot impose onto you their product/service. Government however is a different story. As a matter of fact it was government that made jim crow laws, and imposed those laws onto private business’s like restaurants requiring them to make a separate section for blacks. And you cannot positively discriminate, without negatively discriminating on a different group.

Now I do believe that the civil rights act probably hastened racial tolerance. I still disagree with it in principle. It’s a disagreement that I’m definitely not going to go down in a blaze of glory for. But in this day and age, it is uneccasary, and is becoming a violation of property and speech rights THAT I WISH TO ALL RACES, CREEDS, OR WHATEVER TO THE FULLEST EXTENT. If a black business owner wants to put up a sign that says no whites, go for it. If an Asian owner wants to put up a sign that says Asians only, go for it. The issue is property and speech rights. Two very fundamental principles, and having those freedoms means that some feelings are going to get hurt, ON ALL SIDES. It’s not right of the government to protect one side over another.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

Kansas City, a liberal city. Run by liberals. Regulated by liberals. Trys to prevent blacks from going into the nicer districts and shopping centers by using dress codes (no baggy pants, no gang colors, no bandannas, etc) and curfews for inner city blacks.

What say you?

I don't respect racists, people who try to make excuses for racists and people who are dishonest.

1. White kids wear baggy pants, bandannas, etc --- now if those dress codes are only enforced on black kids and not white kids -- that is discrimination.
2. The curfews are in 5 entertainment districts -- if that curfew is only enforced against black kids and not white kids -- that would be discrimination.

You assuming liberal politicians can't also be discriminatory is just your stupid assumption -- but as usual, your whata-boutsim failed -- and you have shown me to be one of those three classes of people I don't respect.

Those policies were put into effect SPECIFICALLY to combat a specific segment of society. Your rationalization does not dispute that fact. Blacks were causing major problems in those areas and that is how the liberal politicians tried to tackle the problem. Ignoring the fact that it applies to others despite the others not being the catalyst for the policies is nothing more than lying to yourself.

Yea, blacks are usually the cause of most problems -- guess on second thought, we should not only discriminate against them -- but quarantine them too -- hopefully someone will be brave enough to run on that platform

I see. Can't argue the merits so just fling shit in an effort to not look beat.

Oh, you had merits in that racist psycho-babble you vomited on my screen?

Why don't you cowards just come out and admit what you really feel -- blacks are inferior -- so discrimination good

 

[featherlite]

People are very well connected these days and most know discrimination is still out there. Maybe some get to be a certain age and go into denial, idk.


"He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants," Clark wrote. "If he wants to turn away people of color, then that('s) his choice."

 

[Preacher]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

He's right. If you put the money,time,work into starting a business you should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever the hell you want,the capitalist system will handle the rest.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Kansas City, a liberal city. Run by liberals. Regulated by liberals. Trys to prevent blacks from going into the nicer districts and shopping centers by using dress codes (no baggy pants, no gang colors, no bandannas, etc) and curfews for inner city blacks.

What say you?

I don't respect racists, people who try to make excuses for racists and people who are dishonest.

1. White kids wear baggy pants, bandannas, etc --- now if those dress codes are only enforced on black kids and not white kids -- that is discrimination.
2. The curfews are in 5 entertainment districts -- if that curfew is only enforced against black kids and not white kids -- that would be discrimination.

You assuming liberal politicians can't also be discriminatory is just your stupid assumption -- but as usual, your whata-boutsim failed -- and you have shown me to be one of those three classes of people I don't respect.

Those policies were put into effect SPECIFICALLY to combat a specific segment of society. Your rationalization does not dispute that fact. Blacks were causing major problems in those areas and that is how the liberal politicians tried to tackle the problem. Ignoring the fact that it applies to others despite the others not being the catalyst for the policies is nothing more than lying to yourself.

Yea, blacks are usually the cause of most problems -- guess on second thought, we should not only discriminate against them -- but quarantine them too -- hopefully someone will be brave enough to run on that platform

I see. Can't argue the merits so just fling shit in an effort to not look beat.

Oh, you had merits in that racist psycho-babble you vomited on my screen?

Why don't you cowards just come out and admit what you really feel -- blacks are inferior -- so discrimination good

From flinging shit to projections.

Not sure if that is moving forward or backwards in the discussion but good on you for trying something new.

I suspect you are bound for the ignore list at this rate.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

I happen to agree with him, it’s both a property rights issue as well as a freedom of speech issue. That doesn’t mean I agree with people who would make decisions to not serve based on race, beliefs, whatever. A. It’s morally wrong, B. It’s a terrible business model. The government is the only thing that can make impositions, not the market. About a year ago a coffee shop in Seattle, I believe, kicked out a pro life group, and I think they should have every right too, even though I disagree with it. I think a Palestinian baker, cobbler, whatever the **** they are, has right to kick out a Zionist customer, if they so choose. I think a Muslim baker has the same right as a Christian baker to say no to making a gay wedding cake. I think a gay baker has the right to say **** off to a member of the West-Boro Baptist Church. Black business owner should be able to say **** off to the cops or a white privileged person, Vegan to a butcher, vis-versa whatever scenario you can think of.

There was at one point, an argument at least, that could be made for the civil rights act as applied in these matters with business owners. I still disagree with it on principle, but I am also sympathetic to it. In this day and age, if a store owner had a “no blacks allowed” policy, that store would be out of business in a week. A. It’d be all over the news B. The vast majority of people who think that’s fucked up would boycott it, C. The very few people who don’t would be scared to even be seen in that business. The tolerance for racism in this country is so low, look at how fast Roseanne got booted. It was like not even 24 hours...and that was the highest rated show on TV.

I’m sure the OP has no problem with what the coffee shop did?

The pro life activists shouldn't have been kicked out -- and they are well in their rights to seek legal recourse -- unfortunately, if they were not kicked out -- they would have been very disappointed -- you would think handing out pamphlets to customers of aborted babies should be welcome in any establishment -- but I see you left that part out.

I am equally convinced that if a group of Atheists went into a Chik-Fil A passing out anti-Christian pamphlets -- good chance they may get kicked out too ...

We can do the tit for tat game all day -- but question -- what does an abortion rights activist look like? can you recognize them when you see them?

If that business had a sign that says "No Abortion Rights Activists" -- could you pass for a "Non Abortion Rights" person if you really wanted a Starbucks coffee? Even if the sign said "No Gays" -- "No Irish" -- "No Jews" -- it is still conceivable for someone to pass if they really wanted that cup of coffee

but when the sign says "No Blacks" "No Asians" -- it becomes harder to pass

Which is why I always scoff at people who like to pontificate on how the free market would had corrected discrimination in the 60's without the Civil Rights Act--

No chic-fil-a would not kick out atheist customers handing out pamphlets. It’s owned by a Christian, that doesn’t mean that every store doubles as a fundamentalist cathedral. Its a friggen franchise, the most “Christian” thing they do as a company is they aren’t open on sundays, sue them. It’s fairly silly to assume chic-fil-a would do that, unless it fell under the umbrella of solicitation or something like that, that any other store would also excercise. Whatever, smh, moving on.

And the ease of identification of a certain group has zero to do with the issue. Some business owner makes an almost imossibly enforceable rule like “no-one from Irish decent allowed.” So because it’s a harder rule to enforce it’s more okay with you? In principle it’s still a fucked up rule to have.

And no I never once claimed that we could correct discrimination, because that’s definitely not gonna happen any time soon. Nor did the civil rights act correct discrimination. It’s an act that discriminates by nature, and the government is really the only institution that can impose onto others. A business owner cannot impose onto you their product/service. Government however is a different story. As a matter of fact it was government that made jim crow laws, and imposed those laws onto private business’s like restaurants requiring them to make a separate section for blacks. And you cannot positively discriminate, without negatively discriminating on a different group.

Now I do believe that the civil rights act probably hastened racial tolerance. I still disagree with it in principle. It’s a disagreement that I’m definitely not going to go down in a blaze of glory for. But in this day and age, it is uneccasary, and is becoming a violation of property and speech rights THAT I WISH TO ALL RACES, CREEDS, OR WHATEVER TO THE FULLEST EXTENT. If a black business owner wants to put up a sign that says no whites, go for it. If an Asian owner wants to put up a sign that says Asians only, go for it. The issue is property and speech rights. Two very fundamental principles, and having those freedoms means that some feelings are going to get hurt, ON ALL SIDES. It’s not right of the government to protect one side over another.

I understand you like to try to run cover for white supremacists while keeping the veneer of "now I don't agree with racism" -- but you keep talking yourself into circles.

Your argument basically breaks down to "business owners discriminating against minorities in the past -- bad" --- "business owners discriminating against minorities in the present --- good"

And all of your scenarios of "Asian and Black business owners can be racist too" is bunk -- because only one demographic has the long history of discriminating against others, only one demographic has the long history of the political institutions aiding and abetting their discrimination -- and conservatives and these so-called libertarians were silent as a church mouse when those political institutions were discriminating against the "others" -- but yall keep on pushing for "let everyone discriminate" policies -- in fact, get David Duke to run on it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sigh. . . . The problem with this silly comparison, of course, is that blacks are born black but that gays are not born gay, as tens of thousands of former gays can attest.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sigh. . . . The problem with this silly comparison, of course, is that blacks are born black but that gays are not born gay, as tens of thousands of former gays can attest.

That is incorrect. You ought to defer to science regarding such matters.

Ones sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

He's right. If you put the money,time,work into starting a business you should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever the hell you want,the capitalist system will handle the rest.

What was taking the capitalist system so long in the 60's that we had to pass a Civil Rights Act?

Why didn't that capitalist system prevent discrimination to begin with?

How long should those oppressed back then should have waited for their full protection under the law?

Like I said, for the most parts -- only white people opine about how it would have been better to let free markets handle institutionalized racism.

Well lets talk about what some blacks did during the worst of the worst of Jim Crow era laws -- they created their own businesses, colleges, hospitals, airports, etc -- they had very rich business districts all across the country -- one of those areas was dubbed Black Wallstreet in Tulsa Oklahoma -- Capitalism still didn't prevent that area from being raided and burned to the ground by the Jim Crow machine tho.

 

[featherlite]

I think the best way to marginalize these cockroaches is to shine a light on them. It ain't pretty, it ain't easy, but it's better than letting them fester. It's partially what gave us TRUMP.
.

What gave us Trump should inform you that we could easily return to the days of Whites Only lunch counters, and that such businesses would thrive again.

Most businesses care about only their bottom line and would not want such bad publicity anyways. Very few businesses (and no large businesses with shareholders) are going to be discriminating against anyone. That would be bad for business in today's day and age.

That doesn't excuse or negate the fact that a small amount of businesses would if they could.

Those are more likely to be in rural areas where there's no other business for the discriminated person to go to.

What are they supposed to do?

This is the year 2018. To say they wouldn't have any other place to shop at even in a rural area is pretty naive.

I guess you've never been to parts of Nevada, Arizona, California, Washington, Utah, Montana, Oregon and many other places in this nation.

My aunt lived in tiny town In Michigan that is just a lake with houses around it. One store which also had the gas station and a post office. That's it.

With nothing else for miles.

I've been to place on the island of Maui that is absolutely nothing for miles on end with only one place to get food and water along the way. If they're closed, you're out of luck. If you don't have gas, you're out of luck.

I guess you don't do much traveling around our nation do you?

You got that right, makes me grateful I've lived in & traveled to so many places.

Maybe if she can stop chewing through her restraints she'll get a weekend pass and see how the real world lives.

 

[del]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

what color?

 

[TNHarley]

I think they should. I also think black people should be able to ban white people. Its their ******* property. They should be able to ban anyone for anything.

People like you are the reason racism will never end.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

I believe in liberty and freedom over peoples feelings.

You believe in liberty and freedom...for white men.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Of course i dont. Why would you say that?

 

[sakinago]

So a sitting South Dakota lawmaker recently voiced his belief that businesses should be able to discriminate against people of color. Obviously this guy saw the recent Supreme Court ruling as a green light to go full racist -- and more and more openly racist/bigoted people are feeling more embolden to run for office (mainly as Republicans).

so my question is -- How many people here wish the Civil Rights bill was never passed?

Because essentially, to try to argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race is saying you are against the Civil Rights Act.

From the article:
In an interview with the Leader, Clark said he believed that business owners should be able to turn away certain customers if they would otherwise violate their religious beliefs.

"If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away," Clark told the Leader. "People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."


It's stunning to me that an elected state lawmaker- no matter what the state - can be so ignorant as to not know what the Civil Rights Act is and does.

I happen to agree with him, it’s both a property rights issue as well as a freedom of speech issue. That doesn’t mean I agree with people who would make decisions to not serve based on race, beliefs, whatever. A. It’s morally wrong, B. It’s a terrible business model. The government is the only thing that can make impositions, not the market. About a year ago a coffee shop in Seattle, I believe, kicked out a pro life group, and I think they should have every right too, even though I disagree with it. I think a Palestinian baker, cobbler, whatever the **** they are, has right to kick out a Zionist customer, if they so choose. I think a Muslim baker has the same right as a Christian baker to say no to making a gay wedding cake. I think a gay baker has the right to say **** off to a member of the West-Boro Baptist Church. Black business owner should be able to say **** off to the cops or a white privileged person, Vegan to a butcher, vis-versa whatever scenario you can think of.

There was at one point, an argument at least, that could be made for the civil rights act as applied in these matters with business owners. I still disagree with it on principle, but I am also sympathetic to it. In this day and age, if a store owner had a “no blacks allowed” policy, that store would be out of business in a week. A. It’d be all over the news B. The vast majority of people who think that’s fucked up would boycott it, C. The very few people who don’t would be scared to even be seen in that business. The tolerance for racism in this country is so low, look at how fast Roseanne got booted. It was like not even 24 hours...and that was the highest rated show on TV.

I’m sure the OP has no problem with what the coffee shop did?

The pro life activists shouldn't have been kicked out -- and they are well in their rights to seek legal recourse -- unfortunately, if they were not kicked out -- they would have been very disappointed -- you would think handing out pamphlets to customers of aborted babies should be welcome in any establishment -- but I see you left that part out.

I am equally convinced that if a group of Atheists went into a Chik-Fil A passing out anti-Christian pamphlets -- good chance they may get kicked out too ...

We can do the tit for tat game all day -- but question -- what does an abortion rights activist look like? can you recognize them when you see them?

If that business had a sign that says "No Abortion Rights Activists" -- could you pass for a "Non Abortion Rights" person if you really wanted a Starbucks coffee? Even if the sign said "No Gays" -- "No Irish" -- "No Jews" -- it is still conceivable for someone to pass if they really wanted that cup of coffee

but when the sign says "No Blacks" "No Asians" -- it becomes harder to pass

Which is why I always scoff at people who like to pontificate on how the free market would had corrected discrimination in the 60's without the Civil Rights Act--

No chic-fil-a would not kick out atheist customers handing out pamphlets. It’s owned by a Christian, that doesn’t mean that every store doubles as a fundamentalist cathedral. Its a friggen franchise, the most “Christian” thing they do as a company is they aren’t open on sundays, sue them. It’s fairly silly to assume chic-fil-a would do that, unless it fell under the umbrella of solicitation or something like that, that any other store would also excercise. Whatever, smh, moving on.

And the ease of identification of a certain group has zero to do with the issue. Some business owner makes an almost imossibly enforceable rule like “no-one from Irish decent allowed.” So because it’s a harder rule to enforce it’s more okay with you? In principle it’s still a fucked up rule to have.

And no I never once claimed that we could correct discrimination, because that’s definitely not gonna happen any time soon. Nor did the civil rights act correct discrimination. It’s an act that discriminates by nature, and the government is really the only institution that can impose onto others. A business owner cannot impose onto you their product/service. Government however is a different story. As a matter of fact it was government that made jim crow laws, and imposed those laws onto private business’s like restaurants requiring them to make a separate section for blacks. And you cannot positively discriminate, without negatively discriminating on a different group.

Now I do believe that the civil rights act probably hastened racial tolerance. I still disagree with it in principle. It’s a disagreement that I’m definitely not going to go down in a blaze of glory for. But in this day and age, it is uneccasary, and is becoming a violation of property and speech rights THAT I WISH TO ALL RACES, CREEDS, OR WHATEVER TO THE FULLEST EXTENT. If a black business owner wants to put up a sign that says no whites, go for it. If an Asian owner wants to put up a sign that says Asians only, go for it. The issue is property and speech rights. Two very fundamental principles, and having those freedoms means that some feelings are going to get hurt, ON ALL SIDES. It’s not right of the government to protect one side over another.

I understand you like to try to run cover for white supremacists while keeping the veneer of "now I don't agree with racism" -- but you keep talking yourself into circles.

Your argument basically breaks down to "business owners discriminating against minorities in the past -- bad" --- "business owners discriminating against minorities in the present --- good"

And all of your scenarios of "Asian and Black business owners can be racist too" is bunk -- because only one demographic has the long history of discriminating against others, only one demographic has the long history of the political institutions aiding and abetting their discrimination -- and conservatives and these so-called libertarians were silent as a church mouse when those political institutions were discriminating against the "others" -- but yall keep on pushing for "let everyone discriminate" policies -- in fact, get David Duke to run on it.

I understand you like to try to run cover for white supremacists while keeping the veneer of "now I don't agree with racism" -- but you keep talking yourself into circles.

Wow strawman, actually in this case calling this a strawman argument is an insult to scarecrows, more like broom stick with glasses taped to it. I’m kidding, you got me, us japs and white supremicists are tight .

And you missed a few pretty important details in the breakdown of my argument. I mean, I had full paragraphs dedicated to some of them. Two broomsticks with glasses taped to them in a row on your part. See if you can keep up. Racism, always bad. Freedom of speech, good. Property rights, good. Freedom of speech/property (and don’t start accusing me of being pro slavery because I used the word property rights, and you’re out of ammo so you’re trying to toss racism stones my way), means there is going to be racism, which is bad (but there’s also freedom to stand against it as well). What is worse than racism, is government compelling or infringing on the freedom of speech or property rights, even with good intentions. It is not governments place. It was wrong of them to do so with Jim Crow, slavery, etc. For one to think that government will never turn newfound power of compelled speech, or religious practice, property ownership or whatever unfairly against is citizens, or this group over that group, is an extremely short sited, naive, and retarted view point. The problem with Jim Crow laws in the first place, was that THEY WERE LAWS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT. Same deal with gay marriage, government should be completely out of marriage. But because they weren’t, they were given the power to say, “DOMA it is” , then “it’s up to the states”, and two years later “No longer up to the states,”...and now “it’s we’re gonna compel business owners to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.”

Jesus...make that 3 broomsticks with glasses taped onto them in a row. A. My point was never that “Asians and blacks can be racist too,” it was that they absolutely have the right to be racist. You can call me a dick, I don’t agree with it, it is impolite, I’d find it offensive, it’d be an idodic statement (maybe), but you have the right to do so, and will Voltaire that shit for you (as I will use my freedom of speech to disagree with you on it, and call you out on the BS). B. NO RACE, GROUP, TRIBE, RELIGION IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS EVER BEEN INNOCENT OF RACISM. It is an evolved human trait, that added to our survivability manifested by the fact that we have been ******* each other up with tribal wars since our inception, and the fact that some 90% of native Americans died from being introduced to foreign diseases that they had zero immunity too. We are tribalistic, that had a function at one point in our evolution, even though that function is no longer necessary, it still exists. It can be combated against, it should absolutely be combated against, because it’s morally wrong as well as idiotic. But it is a TENDANCY that is inherit to us all. We like people that we perceive are like us. We think much less of people who we perceive are not like us. There have been extensive scientific studies on this matter. If someone happens to pick the same answer as you over some dumb, non-consequential question, you will automatically like that person more. You have helped prove this point by conjuring up nonsensical strawmen, and impugning me with motivations you have ZERO evidence for (and a mountain of evidence against), in order to try to dehumanize me because I do not fall into your group. Much like the westerners calling native Americans savages, or American troops calling the other side krauts, nips, whatever, I could go all day with these example, I trust you are intelligent enough to get the point.