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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This template can be applied to all manner of libertarian idiocy:

"Hey, that restaurant refuses to serve black people!"

Rational Person- "That's in violation of public accommodations laws."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business in 60 or 70 years. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted public accommodations laws! It's unconstitutional!"

Make fun of it all you want, but the Constitution never empowered the federal government to govern the private interactions between people. .Freedom of Association is the one concept that best reveals how the despotic Left is TERRIFIED of freedom. You people are absolutely panic stricken at the idea that you can't control people and make them do what you think is right. You're statists who have no concept of what real freedom is.

 

[bripat9643]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

And you even have to serve "n*ggers"! What is the world coming to?

Accusing your critics of racism is the only argument you've got, isn't it, Weirdo?

I'm making a point. You don't like the point? That's your problem.

When you accuse your critics of racism, it's because you aren't able to make your point. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

I think you miss the point.

"Hey, that restaurant just spread E. Coli in their food!"

Rational Person- "Close that place down until they come up to compliance with health codes."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business after a few babies die. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted a Health Department! It's unconstitutional!"

This, kids, is Libertarianism run amok.

This template can be applied to all manner of libertarian idiocy:

"Hey, that restaurant refuses to serve black people!"

Rational Person- "That's in violation of public accommodations laws."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business in 60 or 70 years. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted public accommodations laws! It's unconstitutional!"

So where is the "template" wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

Good old days for you and other ignorant, hateful racists and bigots – bad old days for gay Americans and other minorities.

 

[bripat9643]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

Good old days for you and other ignorant, hateful racists and bigots – bad old days for gay Americans and other minorities.

Well, in those bad old days gays would decide to make a particular bar their hangout. Then the place would turn into a gay bar because straight people would avoid the place. That's why bar owners would kick gay people out of their bars. No straight person wants to be the manager/owner of a gay bar. I doubt any libturd in here can give a good explanation as to why the bar owner isn't entitled to keep gay people out of his bar.

 

[bripat9643]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

Good old days for you and other ignorant, hateful racists and bigots – bad old days for gay Americans and other minorities.

Today is the bad old days for the Constitution. In fact it's getter pretty near the time for its funeral.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, really. You posted the evidence yourself. The government determined that the minimum temperature for cooked meat of 140 degrees that it had set previously was insufficient to kill E. Coli and they raised it to 155 degrees. All other fast food chains were obviously following the 140 degree guideline because, as your article states, they all had to change their procedures as well.

You are God's own retard aren't you? How did "the Market" determine the 155 degree standard?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, really. You posted the evidence yourself. The government determined that the minimum temperature for cooked meat of 140 degrees that it had set previously was insufficient to kill E. Coli and they raised it to 155 degrees. All other fast food chains were obviously following the 140 degree guideline because, as your article states, they all had to change their procedures as well.

You are God's own retard aren't you? How did "the Market" determine the 155 degree standard?

The government set that standard, moron. It also set the 140 degree standard that caused people to die.

Trial and error is the method of government regulation.

 

[JoeB131]

The government set that standard, moron. It also set the 140 degree standard that caused people to die.

Trial and error is the method of government regulation.

Trial and error is the method of everything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deny services based on color, and that person will pay, severely.

We know what the law is, Fakey. You're un-excelled at the art of stating what everyone already knows.

But you will break it if you think no one is watching, so you, my little anarcho commie, need reminding.

 

[dblack]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

And if they did, they've be run out of civilized society by the status quo evaluation of racism. These days, a business owner would be foolish to present and openly racist policy. The way to deal with non-coercive bigotry is non-coercive public persuasion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So it is a non-issue, yeah?

Leave the PA laws alone then.

 

[dblack]

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

I think you miss the point.

"Hey, that restaurant just spread E. Coli in their food!"

Rational Person- "Close that place down until they come up to compliance with health codes."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business after a few babies die. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted a Health Department! It's unconstitutional!"

This, kids, is Libertarianism run amok.

This template can be applied to all manner of libertarian idiocy:

"Hey, that restaurant refuses to serve black people!"

Rational Person- "That's in violation of public accommodations laws."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business in 60 or 70 years. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted public accommodations laws! It's unconstitutional!"

What's silly about this point of view is that civil rights laws will only ever protect minorities that have already one a critical mass of majority support. Gays and blacks wouldn't be significantly impact by the repeal of PA laws because society wouldn't stand for it. Likewise, minorities that actually are subject to widespread public bigotry won't be protected, because they don't enjoy enough public support to be added to the 'protected classes' club.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So it is still the same.

So it is a non-issue, yeah?

Leave the PA laws alone then.

 

[dblack]

So it is a non-issue, yeah?

Far from it. That's the insidious nature of laws like this. The real damage they do is in establishing the bureaucratic interference of the state as a ubiquitous presence our personal decisions. It reinforces the mindset driving our conversion to corporatism, namely that government and business are - or should be - intertwined as the unquestionable controlling force in society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And we having doing it for a century, yeah?

Regulation, yeah?

And we are in economic shambles, yeah?

You are a moonbat.

 

[dblack]

And we having doing it for a century, yeah?

Regulation, yeah?

And we are in economic shambles, yeah?

You are a moonbat.

Good answer, good answer!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The correct answer.

Nothing negative is happening, take PA away and the bad old types would crawl out of the worm wood.

Won't evah hahpun, cholly.

 

[dblack]

The correct answer.

Nothing negative is happening, take PA away and the bad old types would crawl out of the worm wood.

Dragon's at the gate. Boogeymen galore. Got it.

 

[P@triot]

So you're taking the guidelines for public institutions - ie government - (which has no right to discriminate) and trying to apply it to private institutions. And you wonder why you people lose every debate and sound absurd?

Nobody I know "wants to go back to segregation". You're literally making a straw-man argument because you can't defend your position with logic and reason.

Nobody has the right to force a bakery to bake a cake for them. Nobody. Period. End of story. Trying to make that case is every bit as asinine and absurd as saying that I have the right to force Carrie Underwood to perform a concert for me. The baker's product is a cake. Carried Underwood's product is her voice. If you can force a baker to bake a cake for you then I can force Carrie Underwood to sing to me. Of course, you'd have a ****'n aneurysm if I tried to force Carrie Underwood to provide her product to me but you somehow believe that you can force a baker to provide their product to you.

There is a name for forcing someone to provide a good or service against their will - it's called slavery and it was outlawed years ago. Of course, liberals, being the racist pigs that that they are, fought against ending slavery in the Civil War and have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. They done a good job of it through taxes and legislation and now they are trying to expand it further that they should be able to force a baker to make cakes against their will.

Actually what I'm saying is, when you start a business you go from being a private person, to a public person. If you don't want to be a public person, DON'T START A BUSINESS.

That's a completely false premise. You're literally making stuff up as you go. I've got news for you, you don't get to decide for society that starting a business makes you a "public person". I don't lose my Constitutional rights because I started a business. I don't lose my privacy because I started a business. And I sure as hell don't owe society anything because I started my own personal, private, business.

That's the problem with liberals. You guys believe that businesses owe society something. They don't. And if you think they do, then you should start a business and you should owe society.

I'm not saying people want to go back to segregation, I'm making a point.

If a cafe is allowed to have separate areas for whites and blacks, separate toilets, if buses are allowed to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus etc, what impact do you think this would have?

Absolutely, positively, none. In fact, it's almost certain that that business would go out of business in no time. But either way, whether it went out of business or whether it flourished, it's the right of the private business owner on private property to decide for themselves who they want to enter into business transactions with.

And someone would do it because there are down right ignorant racists out there. I doubt you go on Stormfront, I've not been on for quite a while, I usually go on to find evidence of what racists, fascist, neo-Nazis are saying, but maybe you should go see.

You are correct. I've never even heard of that site. And frankly, I have no desire to go see what ignorant people are ranting about. Just out of curiosity, why would you waste your time checking out what those people are spewing?

The number of far right racist groups increased by 50% from the time Obama got nominated for the Democratic ticket, to when he won the election. The number has increased even more since then/ Partly because of the economy, partly because a black man just happened to have the audacity to be president.

Actually, it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Obama being black (that false narrative just fits the Dumbocrat Party nicely because they think they can convince the American people that conservatives are "racists" and that communists "care") and everything to do with the fact that Obama is an unhinged, radical-marxist who loathes America and the U.S. Constitution and dreams of a communist utopia. You don't have to take my word for it. Go read his autobiography. He's quite candid in it. States how he "sought out marxist professors" at Columbia. States how Frank Marshall Davis, card-carrying member of the Communist Party U.S.A., was his "mentor". Those are all words from Obama himself and there are many more. That is why there was a rise in right-wing radical militias. They could care less that Barack Obama is black or purple. They do, however, very much care about their freedom that the Dumbocrats are desperate to strip them of.

You're not forcing someone to provide something against their will. They don't have to serve anyone, they can close shop and never go back. They made a CHOICE by opening their business. That choice involves more responsibility than simple private life.

They have no responsibility. That's a perception in your own mind. Period. There is no "responsibility". When they start a business, they enter into no agreement and they sign no contract. That "responsibility" simply does not exist outside of your own mind.

Furthermore, if that's the case, please address an entertainer or singer. By your "logic", I can force them to come to my home and sing for me. So obviously, you agree with that since you believe that a baker should be forced to perform their trade and that anyone who earns a living for themselves are "public" and have a "responsibility".

However in private life I can't go around treated black people as I like. There are hundreds or thousands of laws which say I can't. I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law. If a business owner says "I'm not serving you because you're black" it's an insult the same as if a private person did, and a business has more responsibility.

What world do you live in?!? You can go out into the street at any moment you like and scream "n*gger" at a black person. Where is there a law that says you can't like you just stated? I'd love to see you link to that law which does not exist and never has.

If a person comes into my restaurant and dies, I might get investigated, especially if it was my food that killed them. I can't serve what I want, I can't serve poorly cooked food that is a danger to the customers. I could list hundreds of such things.

Right? What's your point? That since you're not allowed to kill people you're also not allowed to refuse to enter into business transactions with them?

By this form of "logic" here, then you are saying that rape laws do not exist and I cannot be prosecuted for rape. Because, after all, if someone is forced by law to enter into business transactions with someone they don't want to simply because they entered into business transactions with someone they did want to made them "public" in your mind, then a woman who enters into consensual sex with someone they wanted to makes them "public" and they can no longer turn me away for sex.

I eagerly await your response to this one my friend. These are your words here, so please explain.

As for your last statement. I'm not a freaking idiot, so don't make idiotic statements.

No idea what you are referring to with this statement but I can only guess that I made a point for which you don't like but can't really dispute.

It's funny how you can go from business having to follow certain rules, to "businesses owe something" lark.

You flat out said several times that a business has a "responsibility". That means you have a commitment. And a commitment means you owe somebody something.

You seem to think that places being able to go back to days of segregation would have no impact. When black kids get shot by the police for seemingly no reason, what happens? People start RIOTING. You think black people are going to allow society to go back to segregation without taking this to a destructive fight? Are you deluded or something?

How do you go from a private business deciding for themselves who do conduct business transactions with to a police officer shooting black people in the streets? How do you make that jump? If you think businesses being forced to enter into business transactions somehow keeps police officers from being racist and/or keeps them from shooting people, you are absolutely insane. The two have ZERO correlation.

You say it has nothing to do with Obama being black that more racist groups appear. Just after you've said you know sweet FA about racist groups. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Why would I have to know about this "Stormfront" website to know that the rise in militia's has nothing to do with Barack Obama's skin color? You do know that black people existed in America before Barack Obama was elected....don't you? And how do you explain the fact that those same militia's overwhelmingly support people like Allen West and Mia Love?

You've started with a radical left-wing position and now you're trying to support it at all costs - even if it means spewing complete nonsense like "how do you think that segregation wouldn't cause a problem when police would be shooting black people in the streets". I mean, seriously, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? A restaurant being free not to bake a cake for gay people does not somehow end with police officers shooting black people. You're just so desperate to defend the position that the Dumbocrats have conditioned you to believe that you're just spewing nonsense now.

By the way, I noticed you failed to address my two biggest points from the previous post. Why is that? If it is your position that once a business decides to enter into a transaction with anyone, that makes them "public" then that means once a woman decides to enter into a sexual transaction with anyone, that makes her "public" as well and she should be forced to have sex with anyone who wants to have sex with her (hey - it's your "logic" pal, not mine). In addition, by your same "logic" of a persons product being "public" and a "responsibility", I can obviously force Carrie Underwood to sing to me at my house so long as I have the money, right?