Is a business allowed to violate civil rights?

[Intense]

Okay.

I'll just add that I believe we have a right to associate and therefore a business that is open to the public cannot deny someone's right to be served.

A private club that requires membership is another matter.

Wrong.

 

[JWBooth]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

Thank you for regurgitating talking points.

Talking points? Dumbass, your op asked the question. Now this subject rates somewhere along with what is the proper soil ph for fescue grass for me, but I gave my assessment anyway. Dont want to hear what folks think, then dont ask the question.

My own damn fault for taking your mentally challenged ass off of ignore for a while.

 

[paperview]

So if no one has a right to be hired then how is a business owner violating anyone's civil rights if he only hires from a certain race or gender?

How is he violating anyone's rights if he only does business with other people who only hire from a particular group?

If neither of those examples are a violation of another's rights then I do not understand your argument. Because I see this issue as the government has no right to tell private businesses how they should conduct their affairs.

I don't think anyone has a right to be hired. I do think that anyone has a right to be a customer of an establishment that is open to the public (unless they are obviously disgusting, drunk, or don't pay their bills).

There are a lot more reasons than that Ravi. There are few that violate civil rights. We have health codes, dress codes, codes regarding pets. If she can bring her small dog in this Diner, why can't I bring my horse in??? No bare feet. No really offensive Body odor. No cell phones in the theater. Can't bring your own food into an establishment. Restrooms for paying customers only. No soliciting other customers. No smoking. No rude behavior. No Alcohol. No skate boarding, No Rollerskating. No running. No diving. No cut off shorts in the pool. No cutting in line. No cursing. We even have a law in NYC where adults not accompanied with children are not allowed in certain areas of parks, if it hasn't been changed yet, because of it's absurdity.

But those rules are applicable to ALL and apply to behavioral aspects that may be disallowed.

In the case of race, creed or national origin, they specify elimination of a portion of the public based on who they are or what religion they follow.

Difference.

 

[Intense]

I don't think anyone has a right to be hired. I do think that anyone has a right to be a customer of an establishment that is open to the public (unless they are obviously disgusting, drunk, or don't pay their bills).

There are a lot more reasons than that Ravi. There are few that violate civil rights. We have health codes, dress codes, codes regarding pets. If she can bring her small dog in this Diner, why can't I bring my horse in??? No bare feet. No really offensive Body odor. No cell phones in the theater. Can't bring your own food into an establishment. Restrooms for paying customers only. No soliciting other customers. No smoking. No rude behavior. No Alcohol. No skate boarding, No Rollerskating. No running. No diving. No cut off shorts in the pool. No cutting in line. No cursing. We even have a law in NYC where adults not accompanied with children are not allowed in certain areas of parks, if it hasn't been changed yet, because of it's absurdity.

But those rules are applicable to ALL and apply to behavioral aspects that may be disallowed.

In the case of race, creed or national origin, they specify elimination of a portion of the public based on who they are or what religion they follow.

Difference.

Totally in agreement. Still waiting on Ravi to Show cause. Where is this discrimination happening or is it hypothetical.

 

[Ava]

"citizens of Arizona have their constitutional rights."

Diabolical, isn't it, how often the media keeps that truth out of their reporting. We have to remember the vision of the Left is to see the perpetrators as the victims...

 

[lawbuff]

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?

A Business has the right to serve who ever they please, the recourse is to make it known who they refuse and let public opinion drive their decisions.

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.

 

[Intense]

A Business has the right to serve who ever they please, the recourse is to make it known who they refuse and let public opinion drive their decisions.

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.

Right on both counts.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

Right on both counts.

Reading a page further, I see a poster quoted HOAM in a copy and paste. Makes me look like I cheated? Ha!!

 

[JWBooth]

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.

Which was an absurd stretch then, and remains an absurd stretch now.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

Which was an absurd stretch then, and remains an absurd stretch now.

Have you ever read any Minimum wage case law? I have! I remember distinctly the use of IC.

 

[Ravi]

A Business has the right to serve who ever they please, the recourse is to make it known who they refuse and let public opinion drive their decisions.

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.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

You are welcome. Some states even provide protection for sexual orientation as a protected class, as far as I know, the federal PA laws do not.

 

[JBeukema]

The US Supreme Court disagrees, JB....if you fling oil on your customers, no dice. That product (the oil) is Interstate Commerce-kissed and now, so are you.

SCOTUS also said that Men have no right to self-determination.

SCOTUS has been nothing but a political tool used to justify the growth of Federal power since at least the days on Lincoln.

 

[lawbuff]

SCOTUS also said that Men have no right to self-termination.

Are you talking about assisted suicide? That is up to the individual states.

 

[Immanuel]

My theory: We will never rid ourselves of racists while we force them underground. We will rid ourselves of them by shining a bright light on them for all to see.

Yeah that worked really well in the 50's when businesses actually put up signs saying "Whites Only". All the tolerant liberal minded whites saw those signs and were like "No way I'm shopping there! I'm going to the hood for my cheese!" That's exactly what happened.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with you... {promises himself that he will submit this post when complete}

I'd like to think that Americans have outgrown all that moronic racism shit, but I don't think we have. I think many people would welcome the segregated restaurants. At least enough to keep them in business.

I think each generation is becoming a little more tolerant than the last. I think I'm more tolerant than my parents were and I know for a fact that I am more tolerant than my grandmother. I've tried to raise my children to be even more tolerant than I am.

I simply don't think we are free of the racism of the past yet.

If the CRA were repealed, I suspect segregated restaurants would thrive.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

SCOTUS also said that Men have no right to self-termination.

I bet they'd make an exception in your case.

 

[Madeline]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

Beat that special little drum set of yours for another 45 years, JWBooth. And BTW, these rules of law are no longer viewed as supported by the Civil Rights Act; they are fully supported by the US Constitution.

In my mind, wishing for the return of the good old days of Jim Crow Laws is so unpatriotic and loathsome I do believe I'd like to invite you specially to get the fuck out of my nation and find an island you can be miserably alone on to live at.

 

[Madeline]

On private property, at a private business, the right to refuse service, the right to hire and fire as the owner sees fit ought to be the rule. If someone is so myopic as to foolishly deny himself the opportunity to participate in trade with another over the color of skin, or nation of origin, then let him suffer the economic consequences while others succeed.

To this extent, I do not support the 1964 CRA.

Thank you for regurgitating talking points.

You still haven't made your case that refusing to serve someone (anyone for any reason) is violating anyone's rights.

No one has the right to be served by a business.

Skull Pilot, do try to keep up with the rest of the class. This has been the law in the US for nigh on a half century now.

This ain't the History Channelers Forum, yanno.

 

[Immanuel]

More or less, when you said: "Then there are the idiots that think violating one person's civil rights is perfectly fine, as long as it promotes their agenda."

I fail to see the connection. TruthMatters seems to think people have the right to trespass on private property in the name of civil rights. As that is actually a criminal offense as well as a violation of the property owner's civil rights that just makes him wrong. It says nothing about my support of the CRA.

When a business establishment doors are open to the public, they are not then simply "private property."

Private establishments, clubs, etc, yes. Any business open to the general public, no.

Okay, then what about Curves as was mentioned earlier in the thread? Or country clubs? Do they have the right to discriminate against men simply because they sell memberships?

And if the answer to that is yes, then what would prevent a restaurant from selling memberships?

For instance, what if say a national Pizza chain decided that it wanted to discriminate and only sell pizzas to "true Italians", could it sell memberships to "true Italians" and refuse service to anyone else?

Edit: I have since seen your answer in post #49. I'll keep reading to see if others have other answers.

Immie