Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Modbert]

To be honest, if I were African American, Hispanic American, etc and a place wanted me to not eat there because of the color of my skin, I wouldn't eat there. I mean, why would I want to eat at a place that is racist and give them my money?

 

[Ravi]

To be honest, if I were African American, Hispanic American, etc and a place wanted me to not eat there because of the color of my skin, I wouldn't eat there. I mean, why would I want to eat at a place that is racist and give them my money?

Because watching them squirm is so much fun.

 

[manifold]

You cannot read. There were posts claiming that if left to the free market, people would boycott a business that violated someone's civil rights.

It's not my reading at issue, it's your comprehension.

or you're just lying again.

Let's review, shall we? Posters were saying that the markets could take care of this...because people would boycott or otherwise avoid a business that refused to serve certain segments of society. I made the comment that it isn't the duty of the free market to protect our rights. Raising the free market issue is a non sequitur.

It would be like saying that everyone knows that if you bring your vacuum to be repaired at manifold's shop he'll kill you if your existence offends him. Therefore, you are free to take your business elsewhere. The free markets saved me! The bad old government doesn't need to outlaw murder after all! Who needs a constitution that guarantees our civil rights!

The arguments stated are not even remotely the same as how you attempted to present it. If you want to ignorantly insist that they are the same then I guess we're at an impasse and will simply have to agree to disagree.

Happy whoring.

 

[Intense]

You cannot read. There were posts claiming that if left to the free market, people would boycott a business that violated someone's civil rights.

It's not my reading at issue, it's your comprehension.

or you're just lying again.

Let's review, shall we? Posters were saying that the markets could take care of this...because people would boycott or otherwise avoid a business that refused to serve certain segments of society. I made the comment that it isn't the duty of the free market to protect our rights. Raising the free market issue is a non sequitur.

It would be like saying that everyone knows that if you bring your vacuum to be repaired at manifold's shop he'll kill you if your existence offends him. Therefore, you are free to take your business elsewhere. The free markets saved me! The bad old government doesn't need to outlaw murder after all! Who needs a constitution that guarantees our civil rights!

I'd start with the Golden Rule, add Courteousness, Politeness, Etiquette, which have all quenched more fires than mandate, which is the last defense, when not part of the problem itself. We are speaking on behavior and what motivates it. Do we seek edification or division?

 

[Modbert]

Because watching them squirm is so much fun.

Sure, but who wants to be the adult about the matter? Don't give them your money, let them feel the squirming in the form of not being able to pay their bills. I don't even want to associate with people who hate anyone because of the color of their skin, religious orientation, gender, or sexual orientation. Never mind give their money to continue their bigoted business.

 

[Intense]

To be honest, if I were African American, Hispanic American, etc and a place wanted me to not eat there because of the color of my skin, I wouldn't eat there. I mean, why would I want to eat at a place that is racist and give them my money?

Agreed, there are so many better ways to spend time and money. It's sometimes more about choosing your battles wisely, than winning everyone. Consider that diversion is a tactic, in itself, that the enemy might use to occupy your time.

 

[Ravi]

It's not my reading at issue, it's your comprehension.

or you're just lying again.

Let's review, shall we? Posters were saying that the markets could take care of this...because people would boycott or otherwise avoid a business that refused to serve certain segments of society. I made the comment that it isn't the duty of the free market to protect our rights. Raising the free market issue is a non sequitur.

It would be like saying that everyone knows that if you bring your vacuum to be repaired at manifold's shop he'll kill you if your existence offends him. Therefore, you are free to take your business elsewhere. The free markets saved me! The bad old government doesn't need to outlaw murder after all! Who needs a constitution that guarantees our civil rights!

I'd start with the Golden Rule, add Courteousness, Politeness, Etiquette, which have all quenched more fires than mandate, which is the last defense, when not part of the problem itself. We are speaking on behavior and what motivates it. Do we seek edification or division?

The entire premise of this thread was to discuss whether or not a public business can violate someone's civil rights by refusing to serve them.

I say no, it cannot.

I do not have a problem with someone hanging a sign in a window saying Catholics suck and we'll serve you but only because we have to. That would be at the discretion of the business, it violates no one's civil rights, and allows the asshole business owner to display his prejudice.

 

[Ravi]

Because watching them squirm is so much fun.

Sure, but who wants to be the adult about the matter? Don't give them your money, let them feel the squirming in the form of not being able to pay their bills. I don't even want to associate with people who hate anyone because of the color of their skin, religious orientation, gender, or sexual orientation. Never mind give their money to continue their bigoted business.

I'm happy for you, and no doubt I would act in a similar manner.

I would also avoid places that are dangerous to me personally, but that doesn't mean that someone is free to mistreat me.

 

[Intense]

Let's review, shall we? Posters were saying that the markets could take care of this...because people would boycott or otherwise avoid a business that refused to serve certain segments of society. I made the comment that it isn't the duty of the free market to protect our rights. Raising the free market issue is a non sequitur.

It would be like saying that everyone knows that if you bring your vacuum to be repaired at manifold's shop he'll kill you if your existence offends him. Therefore, you are free to take your business elsewhere. The free markets saved me! The bad old government doesn't need to outlaw murder after all! Who needs a constitution that guarantees our civil rights!

I'd start with the Golden Rule, add Courteousness, Politeness, Etiquette, which have all quenched more fires than mandate, which is the last defense, when not part of the problem itself. We are speaking on behavior and what motivates it. Do we seek edification or division?

The entire premise of this thread was to discuss whether or not a public business can violate someone's civil rights by refusing to serve them.

I say no, it cannot.

I do not have a problem with someone hanging a sign in a window saying Catholics suck and we'll serve you but only because we have to. That would be at the discretion of the business, it violates no one's civil rights, and allows the asshole business owner to display his prejudice.

I agree, with the first part. Civil Right's cannot be legally violated. The second part is in poor taste.

 

[Modbert]

I'm happy for you, and no doubt I would act in a similar manner.

I would also avoid places that are dangerous to me personally, but that doesn't mean that someone is free to mistreat me.

Except how do you define mistreatment? If I'm not hired because I'm white, would I really want to work there? I mean, how does one define "mistreatment" in the sense of people's actions.

People are mistreated everyday, everywhere. Not just here in the United States, it's life. Life is unfair in more ways than one. If you decide to fight against everything you consider to be "mistreatment", eventually you just become a very unhappy person who is miserable to others. I choose and pick my battles.

 

[Ravi]

I'm happy for you, and no doubt I would act in a similar manner.

I would also avoid places that are dangerous to me personally, but that doesn't mean that someone is free to mistreat me.

Except how do you define mistreatment? If I'm not hired because I'm white, would I really want to work there? I mean, how does one define "mistreatment" in the sense of people's actions.

People are mistreated everyday, everywhere. Not just here in the United States, it's life. Life is unfair in more ways than one. If you decide to fight against everything you consider to be "mistreatment", eventually you just become a very unhappy person who is miserable to others. I choose and pick my battles.

Yep. Me, too.

 

[Anguille]

To be honest, if I were African American, Hispanic American, etc and a place wanted me to not eat there because of the color of my skin, I wouldn't eat there. I mean, why would I want to eat at a place that is racist and give them my money?

Because you might be hungry?

Blues bands traveling back during Jim Crow often had to sleep in their cars and eat on the street because no hotel or restaurant would serve them. Operationing abusiness in a community is a privilege, not a right. If you are not serving the community as it deserves to be served, expect repercussions.

 

[boedicca]

Considering how many small businesses, especially restaurants, are struggling in this economy, most owners would rather have a paying customer than uphold a racist agenda.

Just sayin'.

 

[Anguille]

I choose and pick my battles.

The privileged have that choice.

 

[boedicca]

B'loney.

Every individual in America has that choice...for now.

 

[Modbert]

If you are not serving the community as it deserves to be served, expect repercussions.

That sounds a bit Stalinish right there. Who defines what serves the community? What kind of repercussions? Why must one "serve" the community?

I'm all for not eating at places that are racist, but I don't like the sound of what you're saying.

 

[Modbert]

The privileged have that choice.

Everyone picks their battles, day in and day out. Not merely just the privileged.

 

[Anguille]

Considering how many small businesses, especially restaurants, are struggling in this economy, most owners would rather have a paying customer than uphold a racist agenda.

Just sayin'.

You'd think.

Once in a restaurant I worked in a black guy came in and told the maitre d' that he did not want a black waiter to serve him. The maitre d' accommodated him.

 

[Anguille]

The privileged have that choice.

Everyone picks their battles, day in and day out. Not merely just the privileged.

Some battles must be fought if you want to survive.

 

[Modbert]

Some battles must be fought if you want to survive.

Sure, but trying to argue or even fight every single racist isn't going to work. No matter how much you try to impart knowledge or logic onto some people, they are just stuck in their ways. I see it daily here on USMB with some people to say the least.