Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[DrDoomNGloom]

[
Yeah, liberals don't know that freedom allows you to ban black people from your business. I mean, what do they think this is, 2014? Bah, it's 1920s deep south here, and where did I leave my shot gun?

With Joe Biden possibly??

 

[bripat9643]

You're missing the point. Why does "membership" make discrimination OK, but it's not OK if you're merely a "customer?" What's the moral distinction here? Don't bring up the legal distinction. Whether that is valid is precisely the topic under discussion.

No, I'm not missing the point.

There are different types situations here.

The first is a business. You open a business, you need a license issued by the govt. You agree to abide by laws. Society deems that discriminating someone within a normal business is wrong. I want to buy a pen, should it matter how I was born?

Yes, you are missing the point. I know what the law says. The question here is whether those laws are just, Why does society have the authority to tell a business who it must server? The freedom of association says precisely that society doesn't have the right to tell a business owner who he must associate with.

Membership is often different. It's usually not business orientated. I worked for extremely wealthy Jews, I'm not Jewish and none of the Mexicans appeared to be Jewish either. Members were also allowed to bring non-Jewish friends, business associates and so on along.

The only discrimination was based on whether you could join the club. Money was also a big factor. Also, a massive waiting list and many requirements, like you had to be nominated by a member in order to be able to get membership.

What's the difference?

There's a massive difference.

A business is considered to be open for people to use. It's an accepted part of life that if you want to buy something you can just rock up in a shop and buy it.

Considered by whom? Why should we care about your assumptions? The business owner certainly doesn't assume it, and the only reason people assume it is because that's been the law since the 1960s. It wasn't the law prior to that time and no one even thought of objecting to it.

Membership places generally aren't that sort of place, we've had membership businesses for longer than the US has existed too. However they don't advertise themselves as being a "anyone can just turn up" sort of place.

If I include the statement "no gays allowed" in my advertisements, would that make it OK?

 

[P@triot]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Yeah, liberals don't know that freedom allows you to ban black people from your business. I mean, what do they think this is, 2014? Bah, it's 1920s deep south here, and where did I leave my shot gun?

More vintage liberal "logic" here. It's 2014 - just accept communism. It's so chic and now! Stop being stuck in your old ways of freedom and embrace this hip new age communism!

****'n liberals not only act like 12-year olds, they are about as bright.

 

[JoeB131]

Congratulations, you managed to find a business that survived killing its customers. Note that only a small percentage (about 3%) of the franchises were involved, not the entire chain. Most of the stores involved did go bankrupt. They are franchises, don't you know. That means they are independent businesses.

Uh, no, guy, what it means is that the market forces did not punish this chain for killing its customers.

Disproving the notion you fuckheads have that the best tool from protecting the public from is those good old "Market Forces".

Jack in the Box cleaned up its act because the Government came down on them like a ton of bricks.

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL], addressing a congressional hearing on food safety in 2006, described the outbreak as "a pivotal moment in the history of the beef industry."[19] James Reagan, Vice President of Research and Knowledge Management at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), said that the outbreak was "significant to the industry" and "the initiative that moved us further down the road [of food safety] and still drives us today."[20] As a direct result of the outbreak:

• E. coli O157:H7 was upgraded to become a reportable disease at all state health departments[21]
• the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) increased the recommended internal temperature for cooked hamburgers from 140 °F (60 °C) to 155 °F (68 °C)[4][21]
• the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) introduced safe food-handling labels for packaged raw meat and poultry retailed in supermarkets, alongside an educational campaign alerting consumers to the risks associated with undercooked hamburgers[4][21] The labels and the educational campaign came with criticism and objection from the industry. [22]
• the FSIS introduced testing for E. coli O157:H7 in ground meat[4]
• the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reclassified E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant in ground beef[23]
• the USDA introduced the Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) program[4][23][24][25]
• the NCBA created a task force to fund research into the reduction of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle and slaughterhouses[4]
• Jack in the Box completely overhauled and restructured their corporate operations around food safety priorities, setting new standards across the entire fast food industry.[20]
• parents of the victims played key roles in spreading awareness and advocating for change - speaking directly to President Bill Clinton, meeting with Vice President Al Gore, testifying before the Clinton Healthcare Task Force, working with the Secretary of Agriculture, and discussing food safety issues with lawmakers in Washington, D.C.[26] [27]Some parents later served as regulatory policy advisors to the USDA for meat and poultry inspection.

Yup- all these things GOVERNMENT did, not the Market forces.

 

[JoeB131]

More vintage liberal "logic" here. It's 2014 - just accept communism. It's so chic and now! Stop being stuck in your old ways of freedom and embrace this hip new age communism!

****'n liberals not only act like 12-year olds, they are about as bright.

Hey, Poodle, are you ever able to make an argument that doesn't involve the world "Communism"?

Public Accommedation laws are not "Communism". Food Safety INspections are not "Communism".

You seriously need to get over yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

Congratulations, you managed to find a business that survived killing its customers. Note that only a small percentage (about 3%) of the franchises were involved, not the entire chain. Most of the stores involved did go bankrupt. They are franchises, don't you know. That means they are independent businesses.

Uh, no, guy, what it means is that the market forces did not punish this chain for killing its customers.

Disproving the notion you fuckheads have that the best tool from protecting the public from is those good old "Market Forces".

Jack in the Box cleaned up its act because the Government came down on them like a ton of bricks.

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL], addressing a congressional hearing on food safety in 2006, described the outbreak as "a pivotal moment in the history of the beef industry."[19] James Reagan, Vice President of Research and Knowledge Management at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), said that the outbreak was "significant to the industry" and "the initiative that moved us further down the road [of food safety] and still drives us today."[20] As a direct result of the outbreak:

• E. coli O157:H7 was upgraded to become a reportable disease at all state health departments[21]
• the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) increased the recommended internal temperature for cooked hamburgers from 140 °F (60 °C) to 155 °F (68 °C)[4][21]
• the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) introduced safe food-handling labels for packaged raw meat and poultry retailed in supermarkets, alongside an educational campaign alerting consumers to the risks associated with undercooked hamburgers[4][21] The labels and the educational campaign came with criticism and objection from the industry. [22]
• the FSIS introduced testing for E. coli O157:H7 in ground meat[4]
• the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reclassified E. coli O157:H7 as an adulterant in ground beef[23]
• the USDA introduced the Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) program[4][23][24][25]
• the NCBA created a task force to fund research into the reduction of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle and slaughterhouses[4]
• Jack in the Box completely overhauled and restructured their corporate operations around food safety priorities, setting new standards across the entire fast food industry.[20]
• parents of the victims played key roles in spreading awareness and advocating for change - speaking directly to President Bill Clinton, meeting with Vice President Al Gore, testifying before the Clinton Healthcare Task Force, working with the Secretary of Agriculture, and discussing food safety issues with lawmakers in Washington, D.C.[26] [27]Some parents later served as regulatory policy advisors to the USDA for meat and poultry inspection.

Yup- all these things GOVERNMENT did, not the Market forces.

ROFL! So the restaurants involved were following government guidelines for cooking meat, but those guidelines were found to be inadequate. In other words, government caused the whole mess in the first place.

You just shot down your entire case.

 

[bripat9643]

More vintage liberal "logic" here. It's 2014 - just accept communism. It's so chic and now! Stop being stuck in your old ways of freedom and embrace this hip new age communism!

****'n liberals not only act like 12-year olds, they are about as bright.

Hey, Poodle, are you ever able to make an argument that doesn't involve the world "Communism"?

Public Accommedation laws are not "Communism". Food Safety INspections are not "Communism".

You seriously need to get over yourself.

Wrong, public accommodation laws are a form of socialism. All government regulations are a form of socialism - the fascist form of socialism, to be precise.

 

[P@triot]

They did? Where was this hospital or ambulance service that refused to serve black people?

What about the deep south 100 years ago...

You have some evidence that Hospitals or ambulances refused to serve blacks?

I mean, people's worries weren't that they couldn't get a hospital, it's whether the local doctor would come out and lynch them.

You greatly over estimate the cruelty of White Southerners.

Do I need evidence? It's not the point here.

The point is that either you have a society where business owners, including hospitals, can decide who they want to serve based on their own views and beliefs and prejudices, or you have a society where people who are in the public domain, and make a business that is a public business, have to follow a standard which does not discriminate against people.

Which is it?

Do I over estimate the cruelty of White Southerners?

Lynching of Laura and L.D. Nelson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Laura was taken from her police cell, dragged to a bridge, raped then hung. If ISIS did this you'd say what?

Lynching of Jesse Washington - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"There was a celebratory atmosphere at the event, and many children attended during their lunch hour. Members of the mob castrated Washington, cut off his fingers, and hung him over a bonfire. He was repeatedly lowered and raised over the fire for about two hours. After the fire was extinguished, his charred torso was dragged through the town and parts of his body were sold as souvenirs."

Which part, exactly, have I over estimated?

Ironically, it was the southern DEMOCRATS who were responsible for the horrific atrocities in each picture you just posted. But then they realized that they could never bring back slavery and have communist control over the masses unless they used all the people they hate - blacks, homosexuals, latinos, etc.

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." - Lyndon Baines Johnson (U.S. President, DEMOCRAT)

"I'll have those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years" - Lyndon Baines Johnson (U.S. President, DEMOCRAT)

The Democratic Party s Two-Facedness of Race Relations

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah, liberals don't know that freedom allows you to ban black people from your business. I mean, what do they think this is, 2014? Bah, it's 1920s deep south here, and where did I leave my shot gun?

No ... Silly socialists think racial discrimination in the 20's gives them carte blanche freedom over proprietary rights until the end of time.

.

 

[candycorn]

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

Private businesses were the ones who insisted on the laws, because they didn't want to serve "Those People' or they wanted to keep "Those people' in their place.

It was government- namely Federal Civil Rights Acts - that put an end to segregation.

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

 

[bripat9643]

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

Private businesses were the ones who insisted on the laws, because they didn't want to serve "Those People' or they wanted to keep "Those people' in their place.

It was government- namely Federal Civil Rights Acts - that put an end to segregation.

Wrong. Private businesses were not the ones who approved the laws. Business owners are always a small minority in any community and they don't have the numbers required to impose their agenda on the rest of the population. Furthermore, the fact that private businesses refused to discriminate against blacks is the reason the laws were imposed in the first place. It's nonsensical to admit that private businesses refused to discriminate on the one hand, yet the were responsible for laws that forced them to discriminate on the other.

Admit it, Joe, you're an imbecile who can't admit the truth.

 

[BlackSand]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

Private businesses were the ones who insisted on the laws, because they didn't want to serve "Those People' or they wanted to keep "Those people' in their place.

It was government- namely Federal Civil Rights Acts - that put an end to segregation.

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[candycorn]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

 

[bripat9643]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

No one is arguing against the rule of law, dingbat. We're arguing against the idiot laws you support.

 

[P@triot]

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

Private businesses were the ones who insisted on the laws, because they didn't want to serve "Those People' or they wanted to keep "Those people' in their place.

It was government- namely Federal Civil Rights Acts - that put an end to segregation.

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Again, straw-man. You're making stuff up because you can't articulate your position and defend it with a rational argument.

Incidentally, you're also proving the bigotry of liberals with the "toothless rednecks" stuff. Funny how you people declare yourselves "tolerant" and throw around endless racist and sexist terms.

The only people I know that don't recognize the authority of the federal government are the unhinged asshat libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists. Every conservative I know completely recognizes and respects the authority of the federal government. The problem is, they recognize only the 18 enumerated powers that the federal government is constitutionally restricted by, where as you demand that conservatives recognize the federal government as having unlimited powers "for the good" of society because liberals have brainwashed you into believing such nonsense and your pissed off that conservatives won't follow you on it.

 

[BlackSand]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

Yeah ... I better get with some black friends of mine to better learn the game. Your type have been playing them for decades.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

Private businesses were the ones who insisted on the laws, because they didn't want to serve "Those People' or they wanted to keep "Those people' in their place.

It was government- namely Federal Civil Rights Acts - that put an end to segregation.

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Again, straw-man. You're making stuff up because you can't articulate your position and defend it with a rational argument.

Incidentally, you're also proving the bigotry of liberals with the "toothless rednecks" stuff. Funny how you people declare yourselves "tolerant" and throw around endless racist and sexist terms.

The only people I know that don't recognize the authority of the federal government are the unhinged asshat libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists. Every conservative I know completely recognizes and respects the authority of the federal government. The problem is, they recognize only the 18 enumerated powers that the federal government is constitutionally restricted by, where as you demand that conservatives recognize the federal government as having unlimited powers "for the good" of society because liberals have brainwashed you into believing such nonsense and your pissed off that conservatives won't follow you on it.

From her perspective, if you don't support the laws liberals have forced on us, then you don't recognize the rule of law. However, you're free to oppose any law that liberals don't like.

 

[candycorn]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

Yeah ... I better get with some black friends of mine to better learn the game. Your type have been playing them for decades.

.

Whatever floats your boat there...but when you argue on the side of discrimination as poodle and brifart are doing...you're probably not going to get much mileage out of it with the black community.

 

[P@triot]

Today's toothless rednecks don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government (when the black guy is in charge anyway).

Uppity white socialists always resort to racial comments so the black man can carry their water when all other arguments fail.

.

They toothless hicks are arguing against the rule of law so the only failure is theirs. But thanks for playing our game.

Stay classy CC!

(Incidentally, I have all of my teeth and they are perfectly straight - and I am destroying you with facts in this discussion)