Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Madeline]

Thank you for regurgitating talking points.

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

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

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

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

No, of course not and hiring such a person as a food service employee almost certainly violates county public health regulations, etc. All those diseases are communicable and most via food.

Did you guys have some sort of phone conference whilst I was gone and decide to prank me? What's up with all these ridiculous hypotheticals?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They are but they are engaging in interstate commerce by deriving their business directly from travelers.

Even if only the locals eat there?

Yes, even if the locals eat there.

You make absolute statements and show yourself to be a fool.

I'm just telling you what the legal reasoning is behind it. If you don't like it you can sue.

Face it, you have no argument with this 'interstate commerce' line.

Its not my argument. I'm just telling you where the authority for the Civil Rights Act comes from, sorry you don't like it. I don't think you really understand the scope of the commerce clause, it is far reaching, it does not only involve the time and place that a good is transported across a state border - it includes both the ingress and egress of both goods and persons into and out of a state as well as anything which can influence that.

 

[JBeukema]

SCOTUS also said that Men have no right to self-termination.

Are you talking about assisted suicide? That is up to the individual states.

determination

self-determination

'twas a very unfortunate typographical error

 

[JBeukema]

I'm just telling you what the legal reasoning is behind it.

To assert what us false?

That's not any kind of reasoning-it's lying

 

[Madeline]

JB wrote:

Face it, you have no argument with this 'interstate commerce' line.

You caught us! Over 200 years of bullshit built on a non-existant Constitution. It has all been a bad dream. In fact, we don't really exist...we're all just in your imagination.

 

[JWBooth]

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

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

Beat that special little drum set of yours for another 45 years, JWBooth. And BTW, these rules of law are no longer viewed as supported by the Civil Rights Act; they are fully supported by the US Constitution.

In my mind, wishing for the return of the good old days of Jim Crow Laws is so unpatriotic and loathsome I do believe I'd like to invite you specially to get the fuck out of my nation and find an island you can be miserably alone on to live at.

Oh kiss my ass you retarded dim wit. Your vapid inability to comprehend is not made less by big colorful fonts.

If someone is stupid enough to deter a customer from spending money in their establishment for whatever reason, that should be their right, and let their economic ship sink under the weight of their own stupidity.

 

[JBeukema]

. I don't think you really understand the scope of the commerce clause, it is far reaching, it does not only involve the time and place that a good is transported across a state border - it includes both the ingress and egress of both goods and persons into and out of a state as well as anything which can influence that.

That's not what it was ever intended to be. It's just another case of the FED violating the the sovereignty of the States and twisting things any way they must to justify it.

I don't care what SCOTUS says. SCOTUS is unconstitutional and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

 

[Immanuel]

Fair enough.

So here is the work around. Call yourself a dinner club, charge a fee for a membership card, and pick and choose who you sell the cards to.

But can you really do that? What if it was a dinner club that only allowed a certain ethnic group?

If you are a club selling memberships even if that membership is only a dollar I do believe it would apply. Private clubs can choose its membership.

I basically asked this same question a few minutes ago. You had already asked it. I'm just trying to catch up on this thread.

I think both PPV and Ravi did good jobs of answering the question. I imagine (or at least hope) that such a work around would be seen for what it was and be stopped by the Supreme Court.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

I fail to see the connection. TruthMatters seems to think people have the right to trespass on private property in the name of civil rights. As that is actually a criminal offense as well as a violation of the property owner's civil rights that just makes him wrong. It says nothing about my support of the CRA.

When a business establishment doors are open to the public, they are not then simply "private property."

Private establishments, clubs, etc, yes. Any business open to the general public, no.

Okay, then what about Curves as was mentioned earlier in the thread? Or country clubs? Do they have the right to discriminate against men simply because they sell memberships?

And if the answer to that is yes, then what would prevent a restaurant from selling memberships?

For instance, what if say a national Pizza chain decided that it wanted to discriminate and only sell pizzas to "true Italians", could it sell memberships to "true Italians" and refuse service to anyone else?

Edit: I have since seen your answer in post #49. I'll keep reading to see if others have other answers.

Immie

A gym can, at this time. reasonably exclude one gender just as it can exclude the severely disabled or very old or very young. The standard that such businesses' exclusion practices are judged by is far lower than the one applicable to eateries, transport or hotelling businesses. Since there has yet to be a perception that gender discrimination is illegal or unconstitutional in settings where people may be unclothed, this is legal.

Country clubs that refuse to admit Jews are legal ONLY as private clubs. My county golf course that I pay for with my tax money cannot engage in such a practice and neither can any suburban golf course that admits the public on a fee-per-use basis.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm just telling you what the legal reasoning is behind it.

To assert what us false?

That's not any kind of reasoning-it's lying

No, that's the reasoning. You can look it up yourself in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964).

 

[SpidermanTuba]

. I don't think you really understand the scope of the commerce clause, it is far reaching, it does not only involve the time and place that a good is transported across a state border - it includes both the ingress and egress of both goods and persons into and out of a state as well as anything which can influence that.

That's not what it was ever intended to be. It's just another case of the FED violating the the sovereignty of the States and twisting things any way they must to justify it.

That's your opinion and your opinion doesn't count on this issue, only the court's opinion counts.

I don't care what SCOTUS says.

Yet you expect us to care what you say.

SCOTUS is unconstitutional

Its actually provided for explicitly in Article III dumbass.

and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

Really? What case was that?

 

[Immanuel]

When a business establishment doors are open to the public, they are not then simply "private property."

Private establishments, clubs, etc, yes. Any business open to the general public, no.

Okay, then what about Curves as was mentioned earlier in the thread? Or country clubs? Do they have the right to discriminate against men simply because they sell memberships?

And if the answer to that is yes, then what would prevent a restaurant from selling memberships?

For instance, what if say a national Pizza chain decided that it wanted to discriminate and only sell pizzas to "true Italians", could it sell memberships to "true Italians" and refuse service to anyone else?

Edit: I have since seen your answer in post #49. I'll keep reading to see if others have other answers.

Immie

A gym can, at this time. reasonably exclude one gender just as it can exclude the severely disabled or very old or very young. The standard that such businesses' exclusion practices are judged by is far lower than the one applicable to eateries, transport or hotelling businesses. Since there has yet to be a perception that gender discrimination is illegal or unconstitutional in settings where people may be unclothed, this is legal.

Country clubs that refuse to admit Jews are legal ONLY as private clubs. My county golf course that I pay for with my tax money cannot engage in such a practice and neither can any suburban golf course that admits the public on a fee-per-use basis.

Thank you for your post.

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to this. It is the perception that is the question. I may not think it is right that Curves excludes me as a man, but there is a legitimate reason for them doing so that does not appear to be sexist in nature.

If I were to open a gym like Curves and discriminate against black people, there would be a difference because I could never justify the reason for discrimination against black people without resorting to race.

Immie

 

[paperview]

...

I don't care what SCOTUS says. SCOTUS is unconstitutional ..

Wow.

What a completely fucktarded statement.

 

[Madeline]

JB wrote:

SCOTUS is unconstitutional and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

This is beyond stupid. This is psychodelically stupid, JB, even for you. Whichever one of your personalities was in charge when this was written should be cut off from the 'net for a week and made to write:

I am a US citizen and the US Constitution applies to me too." 1,001 times before returning.

 

[Ravi]

JB wrote:

SCOTUS is unconstitutional and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

This is beyond stupid. This is psychodelically stupid, JB, even for you. Whichever one of your personalities was in charge when this was written should be cut off from the 'net for a week and made to write:

I am a US citizen and the US Constitution applies to me too." 1,001 times before returning.

What is he talking about?

 

[JBeukema]

SCOTUS is unconstitutional

Its actually provided for explicitly in Article III dumbass.

Its rulings and current workings are directly in opposition to the Constitution, moron, as I explained in the rest of the sentence

and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

Really? What case was that?

Texas v. White. There was recently a thread about it.

Try to keep up.

 

[JBeukema]

JB wrote:

SCOTUS is unconstitutional and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

This is beyond stupid. This is psychodelically stupid, JB, even for you. Whichever one of your personalities was in charge when this was written should be cut off from the 'net for a week and made to write:

I am a US citizen and the US Constitution applies to me too." 1,001 times before returning.

Texas v. White declared that Americans have no right to self-determination, spit in the face of Jefferson, and effectively declared the American War for Independence invalid and revoked the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America

 

[JBeukema]

...

I don't care what SCOTUS says. SCOTUS is unconstitutional ..

Wow.

What a completely fucktarded statement.

Yes, yours is.

Try posting the entire sentence and addressing th FACT SCOTUS ruled in direct contrast the the 10th amendment when declaring that americans have no right to self-determination and are the subjects of the Fed.,

 

[JBeukema]

So much for you idiots being JDs



here's a homework assignment for you:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[SpidermanTuba]

SCOTUS is unconstitutional

Its actually provided for explicitly in Article III dumbass.

Its rulings and current workings are directly in opposition to the Constitution, moron, as I explained in the rest of the sentence

According to who?

and has stood against the Constitution ever since it ruled that Men have no right to self-determination and declared all Americans to be subjects of the Union with no right to govern themselves as they see fit, effectively revoking the very right and foundation on which this nation was founded.

Really? What case was that?

Texas v. White. There was recently a thread about it.

Try to keep up.

You're talking about the case that decided secession wasn't Constitutional? Why should it be? The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I think you maybe forget to read the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. You're also misinterpreting the ruling.