Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Modbert]

You equated it with MURDER which is against the law.

No, I equated it with a immoral act. There's a difference.

As someone who is supposedly all for freedom of speech and rights, you have no problem telling me to shut up.

 

[Anguille]

Americans tell each other to shut up all the time douchenozzle.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You equated it with MURDER which is against the law.

No, I equated it with a immoral act. There's a difference.

As someone who is supposedly all for freedom of speech and rights, you have no problem telling me to shut up.

Its not "immoral" for me to tell you to shut up.


Shut up.

 

[Anguille]

That is beside the point and a very naive point of view to boot.



We don't base constitutional protections on demographic market projections and public sentiment for cash flow.

Naive point? How?

A establishment is racist, I'm not going to shop there, that establishment loses the money it would of gotten otherwise.

Why are people acting like boycotts have never worked is beyond me.

I'm also not trying to base any constitutional protections off this. I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about some common sense.

No, you're talking about some loopy libertarian ideal.

Now

 

[Modbert]

We get it already. You can't conceive of compromising your principles. Probably because you've never had to. So shut up.

"Before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience."
- Atticius Finch

 

[Modbert]

Its not "immoral" for me to tell you to shut up.


Shut up.

Still waiting for you to make a valid argument. Guess we all always can't get what we want. But hey, if we try sometimes, just might find, we get what we need.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That is beside the point and a very naive point of view to boot.



We don't base constitutional protections on demographic market projections and public sentiment for cash flow.

Naive point? How?

A establishment is racist, I'm not going to shop there, that establishment loses the money it would of gotten otherwise.

Why are people acting like boycotts have never worked is beyond me.

I'm also not trying to base any constitutional protections off this. I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about some common sense.

You don't have any common sense.

 

[Modbert]

You don't have any common sense.

Is this the part where we go back and forth with the whole "I know you are, but what am I?"

Come back when you got a valid argument.

 

[ihopehefails]

The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner and violate someone else's civil rights.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

And what freedom exist is someone is forced to labor against their will such as serving someone they don't want to serve?

Any action we do in society is a mutual choice between two people such as serving someone at a diner. When both parties agree to participate in the action then you can say that no person's free will has been violated but when one party has not agreed as in being forced to serve someone they don't want to serve then it becomes control over one person that another person can inflict on them.

 

[Ravi]

I see. Might makes right. Had the Redcoats successfully suppressed the uprising, it would have effected some magical incantation that would have retroactively revoked the right to self-determination that we didn't have anyway until our victory in the conflict retroactively established it...

You realize, of course, that you're actually arguing against the existence of a right to self-determination- or any actual rights.

Nope. We would have tried again. But you can continue with your narrow thinking, it suits you.

However it does not make him wrong about the redcoats now does it. Or about what followed.

The only mitigating factor in history or what is right or wrong is who WINS the war.

What it makes him wrong about is that the South could claim self-determination to justify their actions. That claim was invalid since they were slave owners.

History isn't pretty, nor is the truth...but Buttemia is usually wrong.

 

[Ravi]

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 say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

You can't exercise your rights by infringing on someone else's. I'm not sure there should be a punishment in this instance...regardless, it is an incorrect interpretation of the constitution.

But thanks, as usual, for misinterpreting what I think.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You are wrong.

Let me put this into a real world context you can easily grasp to indicate how this will work. Jim Bob runs a restaurant, and also happens to hate homosexuals, who, I am sure you will admit, have the same civil rights everyone else does, whatever they might be. Two drag queens walk into his restaurant on a Sunday afternoon just after he opens to serve the crowd from the local Baptist church where he serves as a deacon. He refuses to seat them for no other reason than that they are gay.

You are now all up in arms because he has violated their "civil right" to eat in his restaurant. You want to join them in a suit in Federal court because of your righteous indignation. You actually run into a competent lawyer who proceeds to advise you that, under the Civil Rights Act, you have no case. The law does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That proves that businesses have the right to violate your civil rights, if they pick the correct one to violate. I believe it also indicates why the CRA is unconstitutional when it tries to impose regulations on private conduct.

I think the business has a right to enforce a dress code. The rest of your post is a silly fantasy on your part.

 

[Ravi]

Doggie, you seem to be slipping into blame the victim mode.

 

[Valerie]

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 say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

 

[Ravi]

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 say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

It really is that simple.

 

[Valerie]

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.

You are wrong.

Let me put this into a real world context you can easily grasp to indicate how this will work. Jim Bob runs a restaurant, and also happens to hate homosexuals, who, I am sure you will admit, have the same civil rights everyone else does, whatever they might be. Two drag queens walk into his restaurant on a Sunday afternoon just after he opens to serve the crowd from the local Baptist church where he serves as a deacon. He refuses to seat them for no other reason than that they are gay.

You are now all up in arms because he has violated their "civil right" to eat in his restaurant. You want to join them in a suit in Federal court because of your righteous indignation. You actually run into a competent lawyer who proceeds to advise you that, under the Civil Rights Act, you have no case. The law does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That proves that businesses have the right to violate your civil rights, if they pick the correct one to violate. I believe it also indicates why the CRA is unconstitutional when it tries to impose regulations on private conduct.

I think the business has a right to enforce a dress code. The rest of your post is a silly fantasy on your part.

I agree. Dress code aside, the Church group does not have a right to be isolated from all walks of life that might enter a place of public accommodation. If the dress code were not an issue and it was a matter of say skin color....If the other group was so offended by their presence in a public restaurant then they should conduct themselves in the private function room or on private property.

 

[JBeukema]

What it makes him wrong about is that the South could claim self-determination to justify their actions. That claim was invalid since they were slave owners.

Good to know the colonies still belong to the King...

Buttemia is usually wrong.

Your display of maturity and intelligence reinforces the impression that you're here for honest and intelligent discourse

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What it makes him wrong about is that the South could claim self-determination to justify their actions. That claim was invalid since they were slave owners.

Good to know the colonies still belong to the King...

Good to see you're still a fucking nutcase.

 

[Anguille]

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 say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Authoritarian measures? If you want to exercise your "right" to not serve someone then don't seek a permit from the State to conduct business of public accommodations.

You do not have a "right" to run a public business and the State has an obligation to uphold a public standard that protects all citizens equally under the law.

Well said. But I doubt manifold will understand anyway. His immaturity, self-centeredness and various emotional issues make it impossible for him to see anything that might cramp his style as anything other than authoritarian in nature.

It's simpletons like him for which the concept of the need for a Nanny State is actually kind of appropriate.

 

[manifold]

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 say refusing to serve someone is not violating their rights, it's exercising your own. I do not believe anyone has the right to force someone else to do business with them. You clearly do, and support authoritarian measures to make it happen. But you lack the courage to come right out and admit it.

Let us say that it is both wrong to discriminate and to infringe on a businesskeeper's right to do business with whom he or she pleases.

Might the lesser of the two evils in this instance have been to limit the liberty of the businesskeeper in order to dismantle an entrenched system of oppression against an entire race?

Yes, it might be.

I'm simply trying to get people to acknowledge that it does indeed infringe on the rights of the businesskeeper. Obviously you are smart enough to understand and honest enough to admit it. Many others here clearly lack either the smarts or the honesty... or both.