Republican South Dakota Lawmaker Says.......

[katsteve2012]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

 

[Dot Com]

with repubs, all you got to do is stand back & let them talk

 

[martybegan]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

 

[editec]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

You really and truly believe that tripe, don't you?

And all the history in the world won't change your mind, either.

 

[Dot Com]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

it would help if, once in a while, you posted a quote from the source w/ a link you lazy, faux- boot strapper

 

[jon_berzerk]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

You really and truly believe that tripe, don't you?

And all the history in the world won't change your mind, either.

would you continue to use the services of a business that had kkk ownership

if it turned away blacks and jews and such

would you use the services of a business that declared

it was a member of the kkk for example

 

[martybegan]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

You really and truly believe that tripe, don't you?

And all the history in the world won't change your mind, either.

In all other history it was the GOVERNMENT being discriminatory that was the problem, or even the GOVERNMENT forcing businesses to be discriminatory, i.e. Jim Crow Laws.

Government, and any business contracted to government should be forced to be non-discriminatory, as well as businesses involved in interstate commerce or travel. For all the others? let the market decide.

 

[martybegan]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

it would help if, once in a while, you posted a quote from the source w/ a link you lazy, faux boot strapper

The quote is from YOUR OWN LINK YOU THUNDERING IDIOT.

Jensen goes so far as to say that businesses should have the right to deny service based on a customer’s race or religion – whether that’s right or wrong, he says, can be fairly addressed by the free market, not the government. “If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them,” he said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the link above: "The measure, Senate Bill 128, ultimately died in committee, after LGBT advocates and even some Republicans characterized it as “a mean, nasty, hateful, vindictive bill.”

 

[Dot Com]

From the link above: "The measure, Senate Bill 128, ultimately died in committee, after LGBT advocates and even some Republicans characterized it as “a mean, nasty, hateful, vindictive bill.”

Repubs bring up these bills, like the one in Arizona, just to feed their rw drone voters red meat regardless of whether the the bill passes or not. They can then come back to them and say "we tried to legislate hate but couldn't get it passed". Their rw drone voters will then vote for them come November because they proved their hate bona fides.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

I think a private business should have the right to succeed or fail as they see fit.

When left to their own devices, most races segregate themselves. Forcing people by law to associate with people they normally wouldn't isn't what I call freedom.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

You really and truly believe that tripe, don't you?

And all the history in the world won't change your mind, either.

would you continue to use the services of a business that had kkk ownership

if it turned away blacks and jews and such

would you use the services of a business that declared

it was a member of the kkk for example

for that matter would you use or continue to use the services

of a business that identified itself as a kkk supporter

even if that owner was forced to serve any and all

 

[longknife]

Private businesses should be able to turn away anyone they want to!

All they have to do is post a sign such as, "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

 

[Asclepias]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

If you dont want to cater to the public then make yourself a private club. I wouldnt spend my money where it was not wanted but I like the fact that businesses are not allowed to discriminate then get a tax write off. its real simple. Put up a sign saying you hate ethnicities X,Y, and Z. Same for gay or certain religions. That way the market can truly decide.

 

[martybegan]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

If you dont want to cater to the public then make yourself a private club. I wouldnt spend my money where it was not wanted but I like the fact that businesses are not allowed to discriminate then get a tax write off. its real simple. Put up a sign saying you hate ethnicities X,Y, and Z. Same for gay or certain religions. That way the market can truly decide.

I wouldn't have an issue if the revocation of anti-discrimination laws includes a disclosure requirement in big letters, similar to how NYC makes restaurants display their health inspection grades.

The issue of public vs private is not the real problem, as ALL of these businesses are private. Government, and any subcontracted government work would have to remain anti-discriminatory, as per the constitutional amendments that cover this.

 

[Pheonixops]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

Is this the neo-republican mindset? I think if businesses want to turn away people, they should make it into a private club, that way they would be protected by the First Amendment. One of the true Republicans put it this way:

"Why did not the Supreme Court tell us what may be done when “the contrary appears”? Nothing is clearer than the intention of the Supreme Court in this case—and that is, to decide that denying to a man equal accommodations at public inns on account of race or color, is not an abridgment of a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States, and that such person, so denied, is not in a condition of involuntary servitude, or denied the equal protection of the laws. In other words—that it is a “social question.”

I have been told by one who heard the decision when it was read from the bench, that the following phrase was in the opinion:

“There are certain physiological differences of race that cannot be ignored.”

That phrase is a lamp, in the light of which the whole decision should be read.

Suppose that in one of the Southern States, the negroes being in a decided majority and having entire control, had drawn the color line, had insisted that:

“There were certain physiological differences between the races that could not be ignored,” and had refused to allow white people to enter their hotels, to ride in the best cars, or to occupy the aristocratic portion of a theatre; and suppose that a white man, thrust from the hotels, denied the entrance to cars, had brought his suit in the Federal Court. Does any one believe that the Supreme Court would have intimated to that man that “there is only a social question involved,—a question with which the Constitution and laws have nothing to do, and that he must depend for his remedy upon the authors of the injury”? Would a white man, under such circumstances, feel that he was in a condition of involuntary servitude? Would he feel that he was treated like an underling, like a menial, like a serf? Would he feel that he was under the protection of the laws, shielded like other men by the Constitution? Of course, the argument of color is just as strong on one side as on the other. The white man says to the black, “You are not my equal because you are black;” and the black man can with the same propriety, reply, “You are not my equal because you are white.” The difference is just as great in the one case as in the other. The pretext that this question involves, in the remotest degree, a social question, is cruel, shallow, and absurd."
http://www.theingersolltimes.com/volume-11/

 

[kiwiman127]

South Dakota Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Able To Turn Away African-Americans | ThinkProgress

it would also allow black businesses to turn away white people, gay businesses to turn away straight people, and anyone to turn away anyone else who they wanted to.

That being said, his point is the market would put these places out of businesses, there is no need for the government to take that role.

South Dakota has less than 15,000 black people in the entire state. How many black owned businesses do you think exist in South Dakota?

 

[Moonglow]

From the link above: "The measure, Senate Bill 128, ultimately died in committee, after LGBT advocates and even some Republicans characterized it as “a mean, nasty, hateful, vindictive bill.”

I don't know of any other way conservatives think....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jensen goes so far as to say that businesses should have the right to deny service based on a customer’s race or religion – whether that’s right or wrong, he says, can be fairly addressed by the free market, not the government. “If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them,” he said.

So much for republicans avoiding saying stupid things.

And this is typical of the ignorance and naivete common to most on the far right, as well as ignorance of, or contempt for, Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

 

[Stephanie]

Poor thinkprogress..they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, some S. Dakota lawmaker said, blah blah blah to get their cult members all riled up


and it pays their bills too

P.T Barnum was right