Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, but a restaurant is engaged in interstate commerce. A fundamental right is the right to travel freely, and restaurants refusing service based on color violate this right. If you want to see the effects of such bigotry, just look back in history at all the black musicians and athletes who couldn't eat at a restaurant with the white band or team they were traveling with, or who could not find accommodations and had to sleep in the fucking bus. This is the United States - we don't have 2nd class citizens here. The 14th amendment clearly protects the right to travel regardless of race, and it clearly grants Congress the authority to protect this right. You don't like it, renounce your citizenship.

This just shows how fucked up the interpretation of the constitution has gotten, and how much people have to stretch language to justify their fucked up logic.

If I own a restaurant the only way I would be involved in interstate commerce would be if my restaurant somehow crossed state lines to do business. It does not matter if I own the most famous restaurant in the world, there is no way that would happen unless I actively shipped my meals to people in other states.

You cannot sell a processed food product together with personal service in the US and not use goods and services created and sold and shipped to you via -- viola'! -- Interstate Commerce. It just cannot be done, Quantum Windbag.

Are you suggesting it is FUBAR to require that restaurants stop denying service to people whose skin color they don't like?

You can still deny such people entrance to private clubs, including private supper clubs, but you'll need a lawyer to help you design the business plan. Mess it up in some minor detail, and -- Bingo! -- the law will regard you as a public place in violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Why do I have to serve a processed food product? Home grown produce fertilized with home grown shit means no shipping, and no interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act was necessary because SCOTUS did not do its job. The 14th Amendment clearly made it impossible for states to racially discriminate, but SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" facilities qualified the states to be complying with the constitution. This allowed states to mandate that businesses could not serve both whites and blacks, even if they wanted to. That stuff you see in movies where defiant blacks and whites sat down together and crushed the racial prejudices was impossible because it was illegal, not because everyone in the south was a racist.

The simple truth is that if this wasn't mandated by law most businesses would have integrated years before the CRA. This can easily be proven by the fact that most businesses integrated willingly and quietly when they had a chance.

Were there exceptions? Yes, but they were almost always instigated by radicals on both sides of the issue. Do you seriously think it would be possible to crowd all those white people into a small lunch room just to protest the fact that blacks were sitting at the counter, at the exact same time that a photographer was there, without it being staged?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Civil Rights Act was necessary because SCOTUS did not do its job. The 14th Amendment clearly made it impossible for states to racially discriminate, but SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" facilities qualified the states to be complying with the constitution.

How did it make it "impossible" for them to discriminate? Its just words on paper, without enforcement its meaningless.

This allowed states to mandate that businesses could not serve both whites and blacks, even if they wanted to. That stuff you see in movies where defiant blacks and whites sat down together and crushed the racial prejudices was impossible because it was illegal, not because everyone in the south was a racist.

So now its impossible to do something illegal? Really?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is forced to open a restaurant. So no, no one is forced to serve anyone. However, if they do open a restaurant, how can they choose to violate someone's civil rights (and no a neck tie doesn't qualify)?

I didn't realize the right to be served lunch even existed.

I am being flip to prove a point.

It is not a wise business decision to discriminate. But Being stupid is not a crime. Because I support liberal principles, I cannot say a man does not have a right to run his business however he sees fit.

If a business owner only hires blonds with big tits, it's none of my business. Just as a Black business owner only hiring black men is none of my business.

I would not patronize a business that did not serve anyone able to pay I have that right. So what's more in line with the idea that people should have the liberty to make these decisions in their own lives; Letting people decide how they will run their businesses and then let the public decide if they want to patronize any private business or the government forcing people to run their businesses in a certain way?

IMO, it is more in line with liberty to not allow businesses to violate anyone's civil rights. What is the point of having them if they can be violated.

If they can be violated, you do not have them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, again, no one has a right to be hired.

Should the government mandate a diversity of cup sizes in the workplace?

This one is just plain silly.

Tell that to the EEOC.

The Wall Street Journal Copyright

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This just shows how fucked up the interpretation of the constitution has gotten, and how much people have to stretch language to justify their fucked up logic.

If I own a restaurant the only way I would be involved in interstate commerce would be if my restaurant somehow crossed state lines to do business. It does not matter if I own the most famous restaurant in the world, there is no way that would happen unless I actively shipped my meals to people in other states.

See my other post for the legal emphasis, however, you are involved in IC if you run an eatery. If one jar of pickles was picked out of state and shipped in, it was IC.

An example, the minumum wage law applies (exceptions) to employees who are affected by IC. You will find IC has a legal meaning of just about every business, as they in some way shape or form do business from an out of state business.

Actually, you are wrong here.

SCOTUS allows Congress to make laws regarding IC even when any clear thinking individual would admit that IC is not at issue, which is why they get away with telling me what I can and cannot grow in my private garden for my own consumption. The argument they use is that my not buying something affects interstate commerce, even if I can prove I would not buy from a source outside the state anyway. I acknowledge that they made the rule, but that does not make them right. I think everyone can admit that SCOTUS is wrong at least occasionally, so just accept that they are here, at least by my definition.

Just because something is affected by interstate commerce, that does not mean it is interstate commerce. If you tried to apply that logic then everyone affected by the illegal drug trade is a part of the drug trade. As the courts have established that most of the money supply in the US has trace elements of drugs on them everyone is affected by the drug trade, and everyone is part of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? Explain how a business can violate someone's civil rights when neither the government nor an individual can.

I did not read the whole thread as it is 11 pages, so if this is repeated, excuse me.

An eatery, etc., is a place of "public accomodation", and the services offered can not be defacto denied because of race, color, religion, etc.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, US SC, comes to mind for a hotel case.

Yes, thank you...it was pointed out. I was hoping someone could explain why they felt a business could discriminate but I've given up believing that anyone can.

I actually did prove it, and you admitted it. Private clubs are businesses.

As an example of a business that can legally discriminate that is not a private club I simply point you to any Rodeo Drive jewelry store that keeps its doors locked during business hours. By not simply allowing everyone to walk in off the street they are discriminating by whatever method they choose to use, and it is completely legal. They do not fall under the provisions of the CRA because they are not engaged in public accommodation.

 

[Immanuel]

I did not read the whole thread as it is 11 pages, so if this is repeated, excuse me.

An eatery, etc., is a place of "public accomodation", and the services offered can not be defacto denied because of race, color, religion, etc.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, US SC, comes to mind for a hotel case.

Yes, thank you...it was pointed out. I was hoping someone could explain why they felt a business could discriminate but I've given up believing that anyone can.

I actually did prove it, and you admitted it. Private clubs are businesses.

As an example of a business that can legally discriminate that is not a private club I simply point you to any Rodeo Drive jewelry store that keeps its doors locked during business hours. By not simply allowing everyone to walk in off the street they are discriminating by whatever method they choose to use, and it is completely legal. They do not fall under the provisions of the CRA because they are not engaged in public accommodation.

Does that mean that a restaurant that did not want to be required to serve a particular race of people could successfully limit their clientele by keeping their doors locked and requiring some kind of "pass" to get in?

I don't mean your typical country club, but say a local steakhouse that only wanted to serve white people. Could they get away with that, by keeping their doors locked?

Immie

 

[The T]

I did not read the whole thread as it is 11 pages, so if this is repeated, excuse me.

An eatery, etc., is a place of "public accomodation", and the services offered can not be defacto denied because of race, color, religion, etc.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, US SC, comes to mind for a hotel case.

Yes, thank you...it was pointed out. I was hoping someone could explain why they felt a business could discriminate but I've given up believing that anyone can.

I actually did prove it, and you admitted it. Private clubs are businesses.

As an example of a business that can legally discriminate that is not a private club I simply point you to any Rodeo Drive jewelry store that keeps its doors locked during business hours. By not simply allowing everyone to walk in off the street they are discriminating by whatever method they choose to use, and it is completely legal. They do not fall under the provisions of the CRA because they are not engaged in public accommodation.

Absolutely. And I would suppose that it is *BY APPOINMENT ONLY*?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Civil Rights Act was necessary because SCOTUS did not do its job. The 14th Amendment clearly made it impossible for states to racially discriminate, but SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" facilities qualified the states to be complying with the constitution.

How did it make it "impossible" for them to discriminate? Its just words on paper, without enforcement its meaningless.

When they tried to enforce it SCOTUS said that it didn't mean what it said, like they did with interstate commerce and secession. That made it impossible for the executive branch to do its constitutionally mandated job of enforcing the constitution. If you actually understood the constitution you would understand that the constitution supplies the means for its own enforcement.

This allowed states to mandate that businesses could not serve both whites and blacks, even if they wanted to. That stuff you see in movies where defiant blacks and whites sat down together and crushed the racial prejudices was impossible because it was illegal, not because everyone in the south was a racist.

So now its impossible to do something illegal? Really?

According to you it is. That is your position with why it is impossible for the south to have left the union. If you want to try to catch me in semantic traps you should make sure you don't put yourself in them first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, thank you...it was pointed out. I was hoping someone could explain why they felt a business could discriminate but I've given up believing that anyone can.

I actually did prove it, and you admitted it. Private clubs are businesses.

As an example of a business that can legally discriminate that is not a private club I simply point you to any Rodeo Drive jewelry store that keeps its doors locked during business hours. By not simply allowing everyone to walk in off the street they are discriminating by whatever method they choose to use, and it is completely legal. They do not fall under the provisions of the CRA because they are not engaged in public accommodation.

Does that mean that a restaurant that did not want to be required to serve a particular race of people could successfully limit their clientele by keeping their doors locked and requiring some kind of "pass" to get in?

I don't mean your typical country club, but say a local steakhouse that only wanted to serve white people. Could they get away with that, by keeping their doors locked?

Immie

Theoretically, but I am pretty sure it would not fly in the real world because they serve food.

 

[Zona]

Every time this Rand fella speaks, the righty's must say, oh dear god, how do we defend this one...

Get used to it righty's. This man wont shut up. Now he is saying this oil thing is an accident and he feels less regulation is better.


Wow. Just wow.

Rand is the gift that wont shut up. I think I should open a restaurant and have a sign that says, "no idiots allowed". (I wonder if that is legal?) I do know, here in AMERICA..having a sign on your business that says "no blacks allowed" is illegal and just wrong.

What fucking year does this guy live in, 63?

 

[syrenn]

I have got a question.

Why would someone who is being "discriminated" against want to spend their money in a business that doesn't want them?

Because they are ass hole idiots? Or because they love watching those who would "discriminate" grind their teeth?

The best way to get your way is to dry up the money. So do patronize businesses that you "think" are "discriminating" pretty simple if you ask me.

As to restaurants I would love to discriminate, and not allow children in! Noisy annoying filthy little fuckers that they are. Is that discriminating? Does that have anything to do color?

 

[Immanuel]

I actually did prove it, and you admitted it. Private clubs are businesses.

As an example of a business that can legally discriminate that is not a private club I simply point you to any Rodeo Drive jewelry store that keeps its doors locked during business hours. By not simply allowing everyone to walk in off the street they are discriminating by whatever method they choose to use, and it is completely legal. They do not fall under the provisions of the CRA because they are not engaged in public accommodation.

Does that mean that a restaurant that did not want to be required to serve a particular race of people could successfully limit their clientele by keeping their doors locked and requiring some kind of "pass" to get in?

I don't mean your typical country club, but say a local steakhouse that only wanted to serve white people. Could they get away with that, by keeping their doors locked?

Immie

Theoretically, but I am pretty sure it would not fly in the real world because they serve food.

I'm just asking this because I'm not sure I follow all of this, but how would that be different than a Country Club?

Theoretically it should not fly at all, but then neither should an exclusive country club nor Curves, nor Augusta National Golf Club, nor any of those female only colleges or so-called traditional blacks colleges and universities. Discrimination should not exist at all, but it does.

I think I understand what Rand Paul meant. I don't think he was thinking (at all?) about the CRA. I think what he was trying to say was that the free market should decide whether or not a business can discriminate against people of race, creed, sex, sexual preferences etc. And theoretically, I think I agree with that, but I don't think this country is as color blind as many of us would like to believe. I don't believe the free market would take care of that problem. It didn't before the Civil Rights Act was passed and I don't think it would today.

Immie

 

[The T]

Does that mean that a restaurant that did not want to be required to serve a particular race of people could successfully limit their clientele by keeping their doors locked and requiring some kind of "pass" to get in?

I don't mean your typical country club, but say a local steakhouse that only wanted to serve white people. Could they get away with that, by keeping their doors locked?

Immie

Theoretically, but I am pretty sure it would not fly in the real world because they serve food.

I'm just asking this because I'm not sure I follow all of this, but how would that be different than a Country Club?

Theoretically it should not fly at all, but then neither should an exclusive country club nor Curves, nor Augusta National Golf Club, nor any of those female only colleges or so-called traditional blacks colleges and universities. Discrimination should not exist at all, but it does.

I think I understand what Rand Paul meant. I don't think he was thinking (at all?) about the CRA. I think what he was trying to say was that the free market should decide whether or not a business can discriminate against people of race, creed, sex, sexual preferences etc. And theoretically, I think I agree with that, but I don't think this country is as color blind as many of us would like to believe. I don't believe the free market would take care of that problem. It didn't before the Civil Rights Act was passed and I don't think it would today.

Immie

You would be correct in this. People are basically decent...and wouldn't patronize any establishment that discriminates. Key here is to trust the people.

But then we have an *Elitist* Factor. But then how many grass roots down to Earth Folks subscribe to elitist mentality? Not any people that I know personally.

I think you're on the mark here Immie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does that mean that a restaurant that did not want to be required to serve a particular race of people could successfully limit their clientele by keeping their doors locked and requiring some kind of "pass" to get in?

I don't mean your typical country club, but say a local steakhouse that only wanted to serve white people. Could they get away with that, by keeping their doors locked?

Immie

Theoretically, but I am pretty sure it would not fly in the real world because they serve food.

I'm just asking this because I'm not sure I follow all of this, but how would that be different than a Country Club?

Theoretically it should not fly at all, but then neither should an exclusive country club nor Curves, nor Augusta National Golf Club, nor any of those female only colleges or so-called traditional blacks colleges and universities. Discrimination should not exist at all, but it does.

I think I understand what Rand Paul meant. I don't think he was thinking (at all?) about the CRA. I think what he was trying to say was that the free market should decide whether or not a business can discriminate against people of race, creed, sex, sexual preferences etc. And theoretically, I think I agree with that, but I don't think this country is as color blind as many of us would like to believe. I don't believe the free market would take care of that problem. It didn't before the Civil Rights Act was passed and I don't think it would today.

Immie

You have to understand that this is just how I interpret the law, so I could be way off here.

The difference I see is that country clubs use membership fees to maintain the club, and thus charging members for less for food than they would if they were a normal restaurant. A restaurant working the way I described would not be charging for a membership, and would thus be subject to a broad interpretation of the CRA.

The reason discrimination can exist legally is that the constitution actually protects it through guarding the right of association. This prohibits the government from forcing me to associate with people I do not want to associate with in my private life. This allows me to not have to argue with idiots who think I have to listen to them whenever they open their mouth. This also allows people to discriminate based on whatever other criteria they choose to use, including race.

As I explained earlier, you cannot really say that the free market did not prevent discrimination before the CRA because there wasn't a free market before then. the laws prohibited businesses from integrating even if they wanted to. I can easily argue that the fact that they had to write those laws is an indication that the free market could have dealt with the problem.

 

[Immanuel]

Theoretically, but I am pretty sure it would not fly in the real world because they serve food.

I'm just asking this because I'm not sure I follow all of this, but how would that be different than a Country Club?

Theoretically it should not fly at all, but then neither should an exclusive country club nor Curves, nor Augusta National Golf Club, nor any of those female only colleges or so-called traditional blacks colleges and universities. Discrimination should not exist at all, but it does.

I think I understand what Rand Paul meant. I don't think he was thinking (at all?) about the CRA. I think what he was trying to say was that the free market should decide whether or not a business can discriminate against people of race, creed, sex, sexual preferences etc. And theoretically, I think I agree with that, but I don't think this country is as color blind as many of us would like to believe. I don't believe the free market would take care of that problem. It didn't before the Civil Rights Act was passed and I don't think it would today.

Immie

You would be correct in this. People are basically decent...and wouldn't patronize any establishment that discriminates. Key here is to trust the people.

But then we have an *Elitist* Factor. But then how many grass roots down to Earth Folks subscribe to elitist mentality? Not any people that I know personally.

I think you're on the mark here Immie.

Except, that I am not certain you are understanding what I said, because I said that people (at least some) would patronize those establishments. I think there would be a hell of a lot of excuses as to why they would do so too and all of those excuses would deny that they were actually racist excuses.

Generally, people are decent. That I can agree with you about. But I don't think racists think they are racist. Earlier, in this thread I think, I said that I know some people that I consider to be racist. They would deny that because they do actually hire black people to work in their business, but you should hear how they talk when only white people are around and generally, I would say that they are decent people, but they are racist as well.

I think what Rand Paul was trying to say is that the free market should be what regulates this kind of behavior. In a perfect world, I would agree with him. Unfortunately, I don't think we live in a perfect world.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

As I explained earlier, you cannot really say that the free market did not prevent discrimination before the CRA because there wasn't a free market before then. the laws prohibited businesses from integrating even if they wanted to. I can easily argue that the fact that they had to write those laws is an indication that the free market could have dealt with the problem.

Something to think about there.

I'd never thought of it in that light. To me, it has always seemed to be that the people made those decisions. It was what they wanted not what the law said.

I actually find it hard to think of the South that I know from my growing up years would have accepted desegregation if it was not forced upon them. I must say, that thought is going to take some real thinking on, because I find it completely contradictory to what I have always "known" about the south.

Maybe where I'm struggling here is in which laws? Are we talking about state laws or federal law, because I can see where state laws in the South might have been written in such a manner as to require segregation, but then those laws are written by the people in the community and then you would in fact have the people making those laws so is there a difference?

Immie

 

[paperview]

As I explained earlier, you cannot really say that the free market did not prevent discrimination before the CRA because there wasn't a free market before then. the laws prohibited businesses from integrating even if they wanted to. I can easily argue that the fact that they had to write those laws is an indication that the free market could have dealt with the problem.

No. No Laws forced those establishments to put up "Whites Only" signs.

That was the prerogative of the owner. You are talking out of your ass.

 

[The T]

I'm just asking this because I'm not sure I follow all of this, but how would that be different than a Country Club?

Theoretically it should not fly at all, but then neither should an exclusive country club nor Curves, nor Augusta National Golf Club, nor any of those female only colleges or so-called traditional blacks colleges and universities. Discrimination should not exist at all, but it does.

I think I understand what Rand Paul meant. I don't think he was thinking (at all?) about the CRA. I think what he was trying to say was that the free market should decide whether or not a business can discriminate against people of race, creed, sex, sexual preferences etc. And theoretically, I think I agree with that, but I don't think this country is as color blind as many of us would like to believe. I don't believe the free market would take care of that problem. It didn't before the Civil Rights Act was passed and I don't think it would today.

Immie

You would be correct in this. People are basically decent...and wouldn't patronize any establishment that discriminates. Key here is to trust the people.

But then we have an *Elitist* Factor. But then how many grass roots down to Earth Folks subscribe to elitist mentality? Not any people that I know personally.

I think you're on the mark here Immie.

Except, that I am not certain you are understanding what I said, because I said that people (at least some) would patronize those establishments. I think there would be a hell of a lot of excuses as to why they would do so too and all of those excuses would deny that they were actually racist excuses.

Generally, people are decent. That I can agree with you about. But I don't think racists think they are racist. Earlier, in this thread I think, I said that I know some people that I consider to be racist. They would deny that because they do actually hire black people to work in their business, but you should hear how they talk when only white people are around and generally, I would say that they are decent people, but they are racist as well.

I think what Rand Paul was trying to say is that the free market should be what regulates this kind of behavior. In a perfect world, I would agree with him. Unfortunately, I don't think we live in a perfect world.

Immie

Nope. We don't. We are ALWAYS gonna have *WHINERS*. They Come in a Liberal-Statist form that cannot DEAL with it on their own...but *DEMAND* It Come from Government by FIAT...Rather than the graces of the Market.

 

[paperview]

Nope. We don't. We are ALWAYS gonna have *WHINERS*. They Come in a Liberal-Statist form that cannot DEAL with it on their own...but *DEMAND* It Come from Government by FIAT...Rather than the graces of the Market.

Just for you Tommy-TuTu: