Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Modbert]

Smoking, prostitution, doing drugs, gambling...these are all recreational activities they are NOT civil rights.

They are rights, which is my point.

 

[Anguille]

Don't forget, we have a Constitution in this country.

So you changed your question to refer specifically to 2010. I still maintain that there conceivably could be a situation, perhaps in a rural area where the only store is run by racists who refuse to sell to some or another. If you are of that race and you need to buy groceries, you'd have no choice but to do what you could legally, perhaps illegally, to oblige that business to either stop discriminating against people who look like you or to force them out of business in hopes the store will be sold to people who will don't discriminate. Boycott alone is not always effective.

Yes, I'm referring to specifically to 2010. 2010 and 1964 are completely different worlds. This is not a historical debate as far as I thought, but one about the here and now.

The only store is run by racists? How small of a town are we talking? And is the entire town racist then? As I just told Mani not too long ago, that was the way things were in a lot of areas in 1964. However, this is 2010.

I don't know where you live Modbert, but this is a big country.

 

[Modbert]

The business must act within the Law, or risk penalty and prosecution. Consider "Structured Liberty" as opposed to "Anarchy".

I understand that.

 

[Modbert]

I don't know where you live Modbert, but this is a big country.

Sure, you just said you live in Queens. I live in a much smaller place than Queens, and there is a large mix of people of different backgrounds, etc.

 

[Anguille]

I don't know where you live Modbert, but this is a big country.

Sure, you just said you live in Queens. I live in a much smaller place than Queens, and there is a large mix of people of different backgrounds, etc.

I don't live in Queens. That was a private joke with Intense.

I don't really understand what you are getting at exactly, that we don't need laws to protect people from being turned away at a place of business because of their skin color because this is 2010?

It may be 2010 where you live but don't assume it's 2010 in every backwater in the US.

 

[JBeukema]

they had no claim to self-determination.

So Men have no right to self-determination... all the tyrants in history agree with you; the Constitution does not.

Now if they had freed the slaves and then split from the Union they would have been justified. But they didn't want to give up their slaves.

Nor did the slave states that remained in the Union. You keep swinging on this slavery gig and you miss every time.

 

[Modbert]

I don't live in Queens. That was a private joke with Intense.

I don't really understand what you are getting at exactly, that we don't need laws to protect people from being turned away at a place of business because of their skin color because this is 2010?

It may be 2010 where you live but don't assume it's 2010 in every backwater in the US.

I didn't like your original point. I also didn't like a lot of the points you made. Such as if people had common sense, we wouldn't need laws. (Don't know if you were joking there or not too.)

I'm not saying it's 2010 everywhere in this country, I never did. You need to stop assuming what I do or do not believe there Anguille. I'm simply saying it's no longer 1964 across this country everywhere as some people seem to think.

Also, as time goes on, the number of "backwater" places dwindles and dwindles. What I also don't get is why you think one set of laws fit everywhere. Yes, one set of certain laws may fit backwater places, however they may not fit my state or NY, etc.

 

[Intense]

I don't live in Queens. That was a private joke with Intense.

I don't really understand what you are getting at exactly, that we don't need laws to protect people from being turned away at a place of business because of their skin color because this is 2010?

It may be 2010 where you live but don't assume it's 2010 in every backwater in the US.

I didn't like your original point. I also didn't like a lot of the points you made. Such as if people had common sense, we wouldn't need laws. (Don't know if you were joking there or not too.)

I'm not saying it's 2010 everywhere in this country, I never did. You need to stop assuming what I do or do not believe there Anguille. I'm simply saying it's no longer 1964 across this country everywhere as some people seem to think.

Also, as time goes on, the number of "backwater" places dwindles and dwindles. What I also don't get is why you think one set of laws fit everywhere. Yes, one set of certain laws may fit backwater places, however they may not fit my state or NY, etc.

Cable was a Revolution that changed things and contributed much to the way we speak. The Internet was a Revolution that contributed greatly to Free Speech and Free Thought. We all live in the present, whether we approve or come kicking and screaming.
It's wrong to prejudge back water places.

 

[Intense]

I could say that the only State that makes New Jersey look appealing is Louisiana, but I'm not Governor Patterson, or I can say enough!!! Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

 

[Modbert]

Cable was a Revolution that changed things and contributed much to the way we speak. The Internet was a Revolution that contributed greatly to Free Speech and Free Thought. We all live in the present, whether we approve or come kicking and screaming.
It's wrong to prejudge back water places.

I'm not saying backwater necessary means bad. When I say backwater, I mean less advanced in terms of socially and technology. You made two great examples of how far we've come as a society. The internet is one of the main reasons why the # of "backwater" places is sharply decreasing. Along with population growth.

 

[Ravi]

they had no claim to self-determination.

So Men have no right to self-determination... all the tyrants in history agree with you; the Constitution does not.

Now if they had freed the slaves and then split from the Union they would have been justified. But they didn't want to give up their slaves.

Nor did the slave states that remained in the Union. You keep swinging on this slavery gig and you miss every time.

Absolutely we all have a right to self-determination. I didn't realize you were a retard, JB.

I said the south had no claim to self-determination because they owned slaves.

You keep wanting to pretend that two wrongs make a right.

 

[Intense]

The problems with North and South went much deeper than that. Even the repression from Industrialized States over Agricultural States, through Washington politics. Here is a book that is great on detail and perspective. "Reclaiming The American Revolution" -William Watkins.

Review
"With historical knowledge that one can only wish more could possess, Watkins has brought our attention back to Jefferson's and Madison's constitutional commentary in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-1800 and their illuminating relation to American history."--Clyde N. Wilson, Professor of History, University of South Carolina
"With Reclaiming the American Revolution, we have a thorough, thoughtful, and important study of a significant subject that has been too long neglected."--Joyce O. Appleby, Professor of History, UCLA; past president of Organization of American Historians and American Historical Association
"William Watkins' important book, Reclaiming the American Revolution, is intriguing and controversial: it is based on much research, and it is full of interest for the questions it raises about federal-state relations."--Robert L. Middlekauf, Preston Hotchkiss Professor of American History, University of California, Berkeley
-- Review
Product Description
Reclaiming the American Revolution examines the struggles for political ascendancy between Federalists and the Republicans in the early days of the American Republic viewed through the lens of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Jefferson and Madison saw the Alien and Sedition Acts as a threat to states' rights, as well as indicative of a national government that sought unlimited power. The Resolutions sought to return the nation to the tenets of the Constitution, in which rights for all were protected by checking the power of the national government. Watkins examines the two sides of this important controversy in early American history and demonstrates the Resolutions' relevance to current politics.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037]Amazon.com: Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia…[/ame]

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Bullshit. Nobody said it's the duty of the free market to protect civil rights.

It is a classic strawman, like most everything you post.

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.

I believe you are correct there were post that said that, but if you are referring to mine, that was not what I said. I said in a perfect world it would happen that way, unfortunately, I do not believe we live in a perfect world. Although, I prefer that this be left up to the customers of racists business, I don't believe those customers would properly discipline the ignorant morons.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Ahhh yes, thank you for the elaboration. I am sorry if I miss interpreted you. Though now it seems worse. That you weren't safe not just there but in the entire neighborhood.

But... who's fault is that? There was a lot of history that this kid from the West had no clue about when he went to the South. To me it was "ancient history", whereas to people who have lived it all their lives, it was neither ancient nor history.

When I left the restaurant, I looked around and I must say that I did not feel "endangered", nor did I while I was sitting at the table waiting. There were a few people hanging around none of them white, but no one was watching us holding a baseball bat slapping it against the palm of their hands either. In fact, I don't think anyone outside of the restaurant even noticed us.

I have to say, to me the entire incident is still unbelievable. I still find myself (at times like right now) asking myself what really was going on. Who knows maybe there had been trouble in the area recently that I was unaware of.

Immie

Maybe she was suggesting you go somewhere else because the restaurant was closing up. You said it was dark, she was sitting down, maybe because she had just worked a long shift. Could be you had just stumbled into a place where kids were not welcome. And since she expected you'd get huffy if she said they weren't she figured she'd have better luck getting rid of you by pretending it wasn't safe for whites. Maybe you looked like a cheapskate tipper.
But maybe you did understand the situation afterall.

It was about three o'clock in the afternoon.

It was dark inside not outside.

I suppose she could have been closing up, but I don't think so.

If she thought I looked like a cheap tipper, she would have been wrong.

I don't know what the reason was, but it would be neat to go back and try again, if I could only find the place. I wonder if the place is still there and if she is still working there. It has only been twenty one years.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda hard to believe any republicans would really boycott any business that refused to serve people of color considering they Party itself activily tries to keep blacks from voting.

Wow, have you got your history twisted.

The Democrats were the ones that opposed the CRA as a party, yet now you want to claim that Republicans are the ones who fought against it.

 

[syrenn]

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda hard to believe any republicans would really boycott any business that refused to serve people of color considering they Party itself activily tries to keep blacks from voting.

Wow, have you got your history twisted.

The Democrats were the ones that opposed the CRA as a party, yet now you want to claim that Republicans are the ones who fought against it.

Don't mind her she is a bit delusional.

 

[Ravi]

Bullshit. Nobody said it's the duty of the free market to protect civil rights.

It is a classic strawman, like most everything you post.

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.

I believe you are correct there were post that said that, but if you are referring to mine, that was not what I said. I said in a perfect world it would happen that way, unfortunately, I do not believe we live in a perfect world. Although, I prefer that this be left up to the customers of racists business, I don't believe those customers would properly discipline the ignorant morons.

Immie

No, I didn't mean your comments.

I don't actually agree with what you are saying though...even though it is true enough. I'm not a big fan of making laws just to keep people from being offended. In this case, however, I believe that an individual's right to enter any public place is above a business owner's so-called right to prevent them from doing so. So offense shouldn't enter the equation.

But there are those that think laws should protect people (business owners) from being offended by someone's presence.

 

[JBeukema]

they had no claim to self-determination.

]Absolutely we all have a right to self-determination.

Make up your mind.

I said the south had no claim to self-determination because they owned slaves.

So the FF had no right to self-determination and America rightfully belongs to the British Crown?

Do try to keep your story straight

 

[Ravi]

they had no claim to self-determination.

]Absolutely we all have a right to self-determination.

Make up your mind.

I said the south had no claim to self-determination because they owned slaves.

So the FF had no right to self-determination and America rightfully belongs to the British Crown?

Do try to keep your story straight

I see you are retarded. There's a big difference between a right to self-determination and justifying actions as being about self-determination.

We won the war. The fact that the founding fathers were a bit hypocritical is moot.

 

[Anguille]

I don't live in Queens. That was a private joke with Intense.

I don't really understand what you are getting at exactly, that we don't need laws to protect people from being turned away at a place of business because of their skin color because this is 2010?

It may be 2010 where you live but don't assume it's 2010 in every backwater in the US.

I didn't like your original point. I also didn't like a lot of the points you made. Such as if people had common sense, we wouldn't need laws. (Don't know if you were joking there or not too.)

I'm not saying it's 2010 everywhere in this country, I never did. You need to stop assuming what I do or do not believe there Anguille. I'm simply saying it's no longer 1964 across this country everywhere as some people seem to think.

Also, as time goes on, the number of "backwater" places dwindles and dwindles. What I also don't get is why you think one set of laws fit everywhere. Yes, one set of certain laws may fit backwater places, however they may not fit my state or NY, etc.

"Fit" Since when does equality have to fit?

You asked why someone would still patronise or want to patronize a restaurant run by racists. I answered your question, because people need to eat. I still have no idea what you are getting at with all your posturing.