Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Ravi]

It isn't the duty of the free market to protect our civil rights.

Strawman ALERT!

Nobody said it was. The question is when is it ok for the government to infringe on individual liberty to address what some see as a social ill. Clearly you think it's ALWAYS ok except of course for smoking bans in restaurants.

Up the thread the case was made that the free market would eventually stop people from discriminating is it is no strawman.

I don't see denying someone freedom as a social ill, lol.

 

[Anguille]

Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

This controversy establishes even more concretely the fact that the Tea Party movement is nothing more than an angry racist reaction to the election of a black president.

 

[Anguille]

And it is supremely silly to claim that the free market would correct this in the end. It isn't the duty of the free market to protect our civil rights.

Nor is it in the best interests of those whose ambition it is to dominate the so called free market.

 

[Intense]

Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

This controversy establishes even more concretely the fact that the Tea Party movement is nothing more than an angry racist reaction to the election of a black president.

Pretty delusional Anguille. So what time exactly is the lynch mob supposed to meet up? What are you serving? BYOB?

 

[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?

Is this like saying, if you don't want to pay taxes...move out of the country?

And where pray tell do you get that out of my post?

 

[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.

Again, I'm talking about business that is open to the public.

They are open to the public. They are not private clubs. They earn their money by selling a product to people who walk through their front door, they just limit who they let in.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Again, I'm talking about business that is open to the public.

They are open to the public. They are not private clubs. They earn their money by selling a product to people who walk through their front door, they just limit who they let in.

I was talking about your first comment...private clubs are businesses.

The jewelry store thing doesn't qualify. Anyone is free to run their business by appointment only.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

OK dude, whatever. What the fuck are you even talking about?

According to you it is. That is your position with why it is impossible for the south to have left the union.

No, my position is that secession is not legal, not that it is not possible. Stop being a fuckin idiot.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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 the nearest hotel that "wants" them is a 10 mile walk.

 

[paperview]

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 the nearest hotel that "wants" them is a 10 mile walk.

They really don't think through the real world realities of what it used to be like for some people, and for some strange reason, want to return to those days.

Most Americans find those kind of views abhorrent.

Cons. As usual, on the wrong side of history.

 

[JBeukema]

No, my position is that secession is not legal

Your position is wrong and I proved it by citing the highest law in the land

 

[paperview]

No, my position is that secession is not legal

Your position is wrong and I proved it by citing the highest law in the land

No, you didn't. You only stated your interpretation of it.

Many legal scholars disagree.

Oh, and that war-thingy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, my position is that secession is not legal

Your position is wrong and I proved it by citing the highest law in the land

The highest law in what land? You don't even think the U.S. exists as a sovereign nation - you think it a club of smaller sovereign entities, and that's it.

 

[paperview]

This Rand is your Rand...


Everybody sing!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, I'm talking about business that is open to the public.

They are open to the public. They are not private clubs. They earn their money by selling a product to people who walk through their front door, they just limit who they let in.

I was talking about your first comment...private clubs are businesses.

The jewelry store thing doesn't qualify. Anyone is free to run their business by appointment only.

Which allows them to discriminate, this violating someone's civil rights. I believe that was the essence of your question.

 

[Ravi]

Secession can't be legal without self-determination, JB.

the act or power of making up one's own mind about what to think or do, without outside influence or compulsion

There is no self-determination if you own slaves...Self-determination back in the day was only for WASP males.

Sucks to be you.

Give it a rest.

 

[Ravi]

They are open to the public. They are not private clubs. They earn their money by selling a product to people who walk through their front door, they just limit who they let in.

I was talking about your first comment...private clubs are businesses.

The jewelry store thing doesn't qualify. Anyone is free to run their business by appointment only.

Which allows them to discriminate, this violating someone's civil rights. I believe that was the essence of your question.

No...they are discriminating on ability to pay for expensive jewelry. That isn't a civil right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK dude, whatever. What the fuck are you even talking about?

By describing how congress can pass laws, and giving the president power to enforce those laws, as directed by congress, it provides for its own enforcement. Did you think all that stuff just happened by magic?

No, my position is that secession is not legal, not that it is not possible. Stop being a fuckin idiot.

War is now a punishment for breaking the law? What law did Iraq break again?

Unless this is China I can be pretty sure that secession is not against the law. SCOTUS rubber stamped the civil war by ruling that the secession never happened because states can't do that. That did not make it illegal, as the only way it can be illegal is if congress passed a law to make it illegal. As that would imply that it was constitutional to secede that is not going to happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Secession can't be legal without self-determination, JB.

the act or power of making up one's own mind about what to think or do, without outside influence or compulsion

There is no self-determination if you own slaves...Self-determination back in the day was only for WASP males.

Sucks to be you.

Give it a rest.

How do they decide if you can afford to buy that jewelry? If they base that judgement on the appearance of their customers then they would be justified in doing so. If a police officer does the exact same thing, using exactly the same criteria of that jewelry store, he would be guilty of violating someone's civil rights.

 

[syrenn]

I was talking about your first comment...private clubs are businesses.

The jewelry store thing doesn't qualify. Anyone is free to run their business by appointment only.

Which allows them to discriminate, this violating someone's civil rights. I believe that was the essence of your question.

No...they are discriminating on ability to pay for expensive jewelry. That isn't a civil right.

Really? So you are assuming by what someone looks like if they can afford your products? Interesting that you should think so.