Restaurant Owner Wants The Right To Refuse Service

[S.J.]

You are so wrong...do just post what "you think" or do you ever research your beliefs?

When and Where to File a Complaint -- Public Accommodations and Facilities

Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. If you think that you have been discriminated against in using such a facility, you may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or with the United States attorney in your area. You may also file suit in the U.S. district court.

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Government Enforcement - FindLaw

I already posted the evidence that the commerce clause does not give Congress the authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

You can claim it all you want, I don't even think they have to rely on the Commerce clause, it's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Here.....from your own Faux News.....they could be lying, but this time I don't think so...


The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News


And, the sad part is that this couple is Christian and they think that Christ would want them to discriminate against another human being. If they believe homosexuality is a sin, then their recourse is not to practice it, but to hate another human being because they think they are committing a sin is not Christian. They would have to discriminate against all people, if they want to use that excuse, because everybody is a sinner and God doesn't count one sin worse than another.

So, if Fox says something you agree with, they're not lying, but the rest of the time they are?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I FULLY REALIZE THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND THIS PREJUDICED AND POSSIBLY RACIST.

No, just proof of the necessity and appropriateness of public accommodations laws.

 

[Mertex]

Do you have a link or is that something you heard in your inner circles? I've heard from waiters and waitresses that Christians, on Sunday, after church are the worst tippers....and that's a shame, and that includes all races. That's why I like to tip big....

There are definitely certain demographics, including racially based ones, that are pretty bad tippers. I think, however, that what you are referencing needs to be understood as a crowd as opposed to a single party. The Sunday after-church crowd is certainly the worst group in some ways, because they tend to compose the entire customer base when you see them. You don't just get one table of the church crowd, while the rest of your tables are "regular" people. The entire restaurant fills up with them, your section is full of them, and the constitute the vast majority of the people you will wait on during your shift that day. It is definitely the worst crowd because you get consistently poor tips from just about every one of your customers. To make it worse, they tend to be very demanding. So you've got a full section of exceptionally demanding guests, all shift, all leaving lousy tips. Church goers generally tip in the 7-10 percent range.

Statistically, black people do tend to tip badly. I'd say that ~75% of black people a predisposed to tip no more than 10% regardless of the quality of your service, and 50% will tip 0-5 percent, with many stiffing you. So, when you compare 100 black people to 100 church goers, the black demographic is the "worst" in that you will get the least money overall. But the chances that you will ever have a crowd like this is extremely small. So even if this one table tips you poorly, you have the rest of your section, and the rest of our shift, to help balance it out. Whereas, the church crowd almost always comes as a crowd. You end up with few to no other guests to compensate.


Now, the interesting thing here is that when you compare white church goers to black church goers, there's a reverse trend for both groups. What I mean is that when you get a table, there's a valuation that you begin making as to how much money you will make from that table. It's a process, but it begins instantly when you see that you have a new party. This is just part of how it goes, as pertains to the tipping behavior of certain demographics:


-Table of white people: Most likely 18-20% tip. If you screw up, 50/50 chance your tip will go down.

-Table of black people: Most likely 5% tip. If you screw up, 90% chance your [meager] tip will go down.

**When you greet your table**

-White people are church goers: Tip expectancy goes down to 10%. If you screw up, chance your tip will suffer = slightly increased.

-Black people are church goers: Tip expectancy goes up to 10%. If you screw up, chance your tip will suffer = slightly decreased.

I FULLY REALIZE THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND THIS PREJUDICED AND POSSIBLY RACIST. IN FACT IT IS NEITHER. I SPEAK FROM SEVERAL YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY AND BASED THESE COMMENTS ON CONSISTENT OBSERVATIONS IN MULTIPLE SETTINGS. THIS IS MERELY A STATEMENT OF FACTS AND STATISTICAL EVALUATIONS BASED ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY. I AM NOT USING ANY OF THIS INFORMATION TO IMPLY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL'S CHARACTER CAN BE DETERMINED BASED ON CROSS REFERENCING DEMOGRAPHIC MARKERS.

You're probably right....I have no idea that there may even be studies to back up the tipping demographics.. My son used to work at SaltGrass as a young adult, going to college, and he and his friends that worked there also, always talked about John Hagee, the preacher at Cornerstone, a Mega church in San Antonio, and how they hated him coming in. They didn't want him and his party seated in their section because Hagee, who is a multi-millinaire, and a Christian, was the worst tipper, a whiner who was very demanding, and would leave Christian tracks with his measly tip.

 

[SwimExpert]

I FULLY REALIZE THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND THIS PREJUDICED AND POSSIBLY RACIST.

No, just proof of the necessity and appropriateness of public accommodations laws.

My post had nothing to do with any such thing.

 

[Mertex]

I already posted the evidence that the commerce clause does not give Congress the authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

You can claim it all you want, I don't even think they have to rely on the Commerce clause, it's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Here.....from your own Faux News.....they could be lying, but this time I don't think so...


The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News


And, the sad part is that this couple is Christian and they think that Christ would want them to discriminate against another human being. If they believe homosexuality is a sin, then their recourse is not to practice it, but to hate another human being because they think they are committing a sin is not Christian. They would have to discriminate against all people, if they want to use that excuse, because everybody is a sinner and God doesn't count one sin worse than another.

So, if Fox says something you agree with, they're not lying, but the rest of the time they are?

Ha,ha, so you think they are lying? What's your point? Faux lies many times.....the reason I don't think they are lying is because there are other sources saying the same thing..... I just wanted to give him a source that I'm sure he values, so he won't say that I'm giving him liberal media unreliable source.....http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17563

 

[bripat9643]

You are so wrong...do just post what "you think" or do you ever research your beliefs?

When and Where to File a Complaint -- Public Accommodations and Facilities

Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. If you think that you have been discriminated against in using such a facility, you may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or with the United States attorney in your area. You may also file suit in the U.S. district court.

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Government Enforcement - FindLaw

I already posted the evidence that the commerce clause does not give Congress the authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

You can claim it all you want, I don't even think they have to rely on the Commerce clause, it's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964..

Regulation of private businesses by the Civil Rights act is considered Constitutional because of the commerce clause. Until the FDR Administration, the Supreme Court had routinely ruled that federal attempts to regulate business were unconstitutional. These rulings were based on the meaning that the term "commerce" had in the 18th century. The court famously overruled FDR's fascist NRA program. After this debacle FDR threatened to pack the court to so he could put his cronies on it and get rulings more to his liking. Under this threat, the court knuckled under and began casting a blind eye to FDR's numerous assaults on the Constitution.

[Here.....from your own Faux News.....they could be lying, but this time I don't think so...


The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News


And, the sad part is that this couple is Christian and they think that Christ would want them to discriminate against another human being. If they believe homosexuality is a sin, then their recourse is not to practice it, but to hate another human being because they think they are committing a sin is not Christian. They would have to discriminate against all people, if they want to use that excuse, because everybody is a sinner and God doesn't count one sin worse than another.

That's all very maudlin and insipid, but what does it have to do with the commerce clause?

 

[SwimExpert]

You're probably right....I have no idea that there may even be studies to back up the tipping demographics.. My son used to work at SaltGrass as a young adult, going to college, and he and his friends that worked there also, always talked about John Hagee, the preacher at Cornerstone, a Mega church in San Antonio, and how they hated him coming in. They didn't want him and his party seated in their section because Hagee, who is a multi-millinaire, and a Christian, was the worst tipper, a whiner who was very demanding, and would leave Christian tracks with his measly tip.

SaltGrass in San Antonio? Right next to Macaroni Grill, isn't it?

Yeah, if I were working in a restaurant still and saw that guy coming in, I would run immediately. Funny thing when it comes to bad tippers. They're already bad tippers, but the more of a needlessly pain the in ass they are, the worse of a tipper they become.

 

[bripat9643]

No, and I wasn't before. Thanks for asking. Now, why the hell are you still in this country?

Hmm. Your post is a perfect demonstration of liberal intolerance.

I try to be tolerant of liberals (well, sometimes). I'm not sure if that idiot considers himself one or not, but he's a douche either way.

 

[Mertex]

I already posted the evidence that the commerce clause does not give Congress the authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

You can claim it all you want, I don't even think they have to rely on the Commerce clause, it's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964..

Regulation of private businesses by the Civil Rights act is considered Constitutional because of the commerce clause. Until the FDR Administration, the Supreme Court had routinely ruled that federal attempts to regulate business were unconstitutional. These rulings were based on the meaning of the term "commerce" had in the 18th century. The court famously overruled FDR's fascist NRA program. After this debacle FDR threatened to pack the court to so he could put his cronies on it and get rulings more to his liking. Under this threat, the court knuckled under and began casting a blind eye to FDR's numerous assaults on the Constitution.

[Here.....from your own Faux News.....they could be lying, but this time I don't think so...


The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News


And, the sad part is that this couple is Christian and they think that Christ would want them to discriminate against another human being. If they believe homosexuality is a sin, then their recourse is not to practice it, but to hate another human being because they think they are committing a sin is not Christian. They would have to discriminate against all people, if they want to use that excuse, because everybody is a sinner and God doesn't count one sin worse than another.

That's all very maudlin and insipid, but what does it have to do with the commerce clause?

You're the one talking about the Commerce Clause, so you tell me what it has to do with it.

I said discrimination complaints don't have anything to do with the commerce clause, they are based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And this Bakery discriminated against the lesbian couple and got found guilty of discrimination.

 

[bripat9643]

You can claim it all you want, I don't even think they have to rely on the Commerce clause, it's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964..

Regulation of private businesses by the Civil Rights act is considered Constitutional because of the commerce clause. Until the FDR Administration, the Supreme Court had routinely ruled that federal attempts to regulate business were unconstitutional. These rulings were based on the meaning of the term "commerce" had in the 18th century. The court famously overruled FDR's fascist NRA program. After this debacle FDR threatened to pack the court to so he could put his cronies on it and get rulings more to his liking. Under this threat, the court knuckled under and began casting a blind eye to FDR's numerous assaults on the Constitution.

[Here.....from your own Faux News.....they could be lying, but this time I don't think so...


The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News


And, the sad part is that this couple is Christian and they think that Christ would want them to discriminate against another human being. If they believe homosexuality is a sin, then their recourse is not to practice it, but to hate another human being because they think they are committing a sin is not Christian. They would have to discriminate against all people, if they want to use that excuse, because everybody is a sinner and God doesn't count one sin worse than another.

That's all very maudlin and insipid, but what does it have to do with the commerce clause?

You're the one talking about the Commerce Clause, so you tell me what it has to do with it.

I said discrimination complaints don't have anything to do with the commerce clause, they are based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And this Bakery discriminated against the lesbian couple and got found guilty of discrimination.

I just explained it to you, nitwit. Congress claims the Commerce Clause gives it authority to regulate business. That's the only way the provisions on the Civil Rights bill outlawing discrimination by hotels and restaurants could pass Constitutional muster. The only problem with that is that for 150 years the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause did not give Congress authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

I hope that was so clear that even a moron like you could understand it, but then I'm something of an optimist.

 

[Mertex]

Regulation of private businesses by the Civil Rights act is considered Constitutional because of the commerce clause. Until the FDR Administration, the Supreme Court had routinely ruled that federal attempts to regulate business were unconstitutional. These rulings were based on the meaning of the term "commerce" had in the 18th century. The court famously overruled FDR's fascist NRA program. After this debacle FDR threatened to pack the court to so he could put his cronies on it and get rulings more to his liking. Under this threat, the court knuckled under and began casting a blind eye to FDR's numerous assaults on the Constitution.



That's all very maudlin and insipid, but what does it have to do with the commerce clause?

You're the one talking about the Commerce Clause, so you tell me what it has to do with it.

I said discrimination complaints don't have anything to do with the commerce clause, they are based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And this Bakery discriminated against the lesbian couple and got found guilty of discrimination.

I just explained it to you, nitwit. Congress claims the Commerce Clause gives it authority to regulate business. That's the only way the provisions on the Civil Rights bill outlawing discrimination by hotels and restaurants could pass Constitutional muster. The only problem with that is that for 150 years the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause did not give Congress authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

I hope that was so clear that even a moron like you could understand it, but then I'm something of an optimist.

Ha,ha, you must be losing because you've already resorted to name-calling....so typical of those who can't handle when they are handed their ass on a platter.

If you are so smart.....post me a link where the Civil Rights Act has been overturned and no longer can charge businesses with discrimination for refusing to serve anyone based on race, color, or gender......I'll be waiting....

And, I already gave you a link to a recent case where a bakery was found guilty of discrimination. If you are so smart and so up to date, post me up a link showing that the Supreme Court has overturned the Civil Rights Act, and then explain how Oregon could find this Bakery guilty......MORAN.

 

[Mertex]

Are you still crying? ...

No, and I wasn't before. Thanks for asking. Now, why the hell are you still in this country?

I found your picture on the internet:

That looks more like you.....whiny, can't even debate without crying and calling names....
waaaahhhhhhhh.......somebody call the wambulance for you...

 

[Mac1958]

We like to think we are "post racial" and don't need these laws.

"Post racial"?

Dafuq?

All you people SEE is the color of a person's skin.

Was this a serious post?

.

that's funny given that "you people" want a return to jim crow.

but keep defending racists. it's all good.

Jim Crow. Here we go again.

You people are apparently genetically incapable of being honest.

And yes, I will always defend what remains of freedom of speech. I'm not afraid of words, they're often educational, instructive and represent opportunity. Adults are curious and willing to work to change hearts & minds.

Well, most are.

.

 

[JoeB131]

"Post racial"?

Dafuq?

All you people SEE is the color of a person's skin.

Was this a serious post?

.

that's funny given that "you people" want a return to jim crow.

but keep defending racists. it's all good.

Jim Crow. Here we go again.

You people are apparently genetically incapable of being honest.

And yes, I will always defend what remains of freedom of speech. I'm not afraid of words, they're often educational, instructive and represent opportunity. Adults are curious and willing to work to change hearts & minds.

Well, most are.

.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.

Running a business isn't "speech". It's a business, and usually, you have to have a business license to do it.

And if one of those requirements of a license is that you have to serve all customers who have the ability to pay for the goods or services, then that is the way that it is.

If you don't like it, don't have a business.

And this is no doubt what bothers you, the notion that you can only have a business as long as society tolerates it.

 

[eddy106]

I am sure that we have all gone into a business and saw the sign we reserve the right to reserve service to anyone. While there are many stories that will break your heart about restaurants that refuse to serve a person based on their handicap, color, or other characteristic, the law remains a little different. If the presence of the customer creates an environment that harms employees or other patrons, then service can be denied. If a person’s presence creates a safety or health issue then the customer may be asked to leave. If the business has reached maximum capacity then, a person may be asked to leave. In addition, businesses are not required to operate beyond their normal hours.

 

[Mertex]

that's funny given that "you people" want a return to jim crow.

but keep defending racists. it's all good.

Jim Crow. Here we go again.

You people are apparently genetically incapable of being honest.

And yes, I will always defend what remains of freedom of speech. I'm not afraid of words, they're often educational, instructive and represent opportunity. Adults are curious and willing to work to change hearts & minds.

Well, most are.

.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.

Running a business isn't "speech". It's a business, and usually, you have to have a business license to do it.

And if one of those requirements of a license is that you have to serve all customers who have the ability to pay for the goods or services, then that is the way that it is.

If you don't like it, don't have a business.

And this is no doubt what bothers you, the notion that you can only have a business as long as society tolerates it.

What is so appaling in this thread is that they (conservatives) keep claiming that Libs are the racists, but yet, they are the ones defending the right of a business owner to discriminate and have "whites only" posted on their restaurants. Don't they see the contradiction? Apparently not.....

 

[OriginalShroom]

Reading some of the posts here remind how hypocritical the left is.

They say that a business can't refuse to provide a service to some people because of the color of their skin or who they sleep with, yet they say that the same business can refuse to provide a service to me because I carry a firearm.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're the one talking about the Commerce Clause, so you tell me what it has to do with it.

I said discrimination complaints don't have anything to do with the commerce clause, they are based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And this Bakery discriminated against the lesbian couple and got found guilty of discrimination.

I just explained it to you, nitwit. Congress claims the Commerce Clause gives it authority to regulate business. That's the only way the provisions on the Civil Rights bill outlawing discrimination by hotels and restaurants could pass Constitutional muster. The only problem with that is that for 150 years the Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause did not give Congress authority to regulate hotels and restaurants.

I hope that was so clear that even a moron like you could understand it, but then I'm something of an optimist.

Ha,ha, you must be losing because you've already resorted to name-calling....so typical of those who can't handle when they are handed their ass on a platter.

If you are so smart.....post me a link where the Civil Rights Act has been overturned and no longer can charge businesses with discrimination for refusing to serve anyone based on race, color, or gender......I'll be waiting....

And, I already gave you a link to a recent case where a bakery was found guilty of discrimination. If you are so smart and so up to date, post me up a link showing that the Supreme Court has overturned the Civil Rights Act, and then explain how Oregon could find this Bakery guilty......MORAN.

"Duuuhh. You answered my question, but what about answering my question? Oh, you commented on how fucking stupid I sound, re-asking the same question you just answered, so I must be WINNING!"

I guess if you measure your success by how many times you can get people to recognize that you're a moron, you win all the time, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, and I wasn't before. Thanks for asking. Now, why the hell are you still in this country?

I found your picture on the internet:

That looks more like you.....whiny, can't even debate without crying and calling names....
waaaahhhhhhhh.......somebody call the wambulance for you...

I'm impressed. Most people with your level of brain damage die outright.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jim Crow. Here we go again.

You people are apparently genetically incapable of being honest.

And yes, I will always defend what remains of freedom of speech. I'm not afraid of words, they're often educational, instructive and represent opportunity. Adults are curious and willing to work to change hearts & minds.

Well, most are.

.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.

Running a business isn't "speech". It's a business, and usually, you have to have a business license to do it.

And if one of those requirements of a license is that you have to serve all customers who have the ability to pay for the goods or services, then that is the way that it is.

If you don't like it, don't have a business.

And this is no doubt what bothers you, the notion that you can only have a business as long as society tolerates it.

What is so appaling in this thread is that they (conservatives) keep claiming that Libs are the racists, but yet, they are the ones defending the right of a business owner to discriminate and have "whites only" posted on their restaurants. Don't they see the contradiction? Apparently not.....

I realize that you're a leftist, and therefore so ignorant and narcissistic that you simply cannot imagine the idea of anything outside of yourself and your own personal beliefs and interests. Nevertheless, please try to wrap both of your functioning brain cells around the concept that conservatives, unlike you, are perfectly capable of respecting someone's rights even if we disagree with - or even despise - the way they choose to express them. We feel no need whatsoever to enslave and suppress others. Why, we even champion YOUR God-given right to be a drooling mouthbreather right out in public any time you like.

You're welcome.