Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[DrDoomNGloom]

Exactly! So then you agree that there is absolutely no reason for the left's obsession with forcing business to do what they want.

I also have always found it comical that liberals demand that business owners do everything that liberals want, instead of liberals just launching their own business and doing it themselves. If you're a liberal and you think McDonald's doesn't pay enough, then launch your own fast food restaurant and pay everyone $72,000. But you never see liberals do that because they are too lazy and too greedy (it's easier to mooch than it is to build a business).

I think you miss the point.

"Hey, that restaurant just spread E. Coli in their food!"

Rational Person- "Close that place down until they come up to compliance with health codes."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business after a few babies die. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted a Health Department! It's unconstitutional!"

This, kids, is Libertarianism run amok.

The minute someone dies from eating E. Coli infected food in a restaurant, that establishment is headed for bankruptcy. Only a liberal would be stupid enough to patronize the place after hearing such news.

Only a couple of morons, who want to argue would fail to realize the Health Department gets involved rater quickly in e.coli cases ................
Full use of CDC and government resources are available to them .....................

E.coli comes from bovine feces in the beef(in most national cases), unless they are slaughtering cattle on sight before serving(would never happen, no only do codes not permit, but beef really needs to age to be tender), then CDC will come in and trace back wards the bad food sources and initiate recalls .............

Most of these scenarios have been thought of and dealt with either over time or think tanked out in case of actual occurrence, but hey I understand some one has to do some fear mongering ...................

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thanks for telling us what the law is. I think we already know that. Freedom is the ability to do as you please despite what other people think. You have made it clear that you are opposed to freedom.

So anyone who disagrees that black people can be barred from any establishment simply because they are black, is opposed to freedom?

How does labelling the decision of some organization doing what it pleases "a membership issue" make it OK for them but not OK for other organizations? Why would it be OK for a cafe to have only white "members" but not only white customers?

I didn't say it was okay. I said it could possibly happen.

Would it be okay for a cafe to literally refuse to serve anyone who wasn't a member and members just all happened to be white? You're getting into the realm where it is very difficult to judge things.

There are plenty of clubs which have membership only. I happened to work for a company where membership was only for Jewish people and they had to be able to pay too. It's legal. Is it a problem?

At what point does a membership scheme break the law and at what point is membership discrimination valid?

It's a difficult question.

Religion has membership in a manner too.

 

[BlackSand]

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Discrimination =Freedom? Hate, fear and suspicion are American values? Creating a second class citizen because you think it's a matter of Liberty and Freedom makes sense?

What a pitiful attitude you have.

You don't have the right to burn someone else's building down.
It doesn't matter if that building is a church, a bar, a police station, a tattoo parlor.

Whether or not you agree with something doesn't give you the right to punish it. Because I believe that blacks are welcome in my establishment and crackheads are not means that I am discriminating.

So yes ... Freedom means you have the ability to discriminate.

.

 

[bripat9643]

They did? Where was this hospital or ambulance service that refused to serve black people?

What about the deep south 100 years ago...

You have some evidence that Hospitals or ambulances refused to serve blacks?

I mean, people's worries weren't that they couldn't get a hospital, it's whether the local doctor would come out and lynch them.

You greatly over estimate the cruelty of White Southerners.

Do I need evidence? It's not the point here.

The point is that either you have a society where business owners, including hospitals, can decide who they want to serve based on their own views and beliefs and prejudices, or you have a society where people who are in the public domain, and make a business that is a public business, have to follow a standard which does not discriminate against people.

Which is it?

Do I over estimate the cruelty of White Southerners?

Which part, exactly, have I over estimated?

We all know lynching has occurred. However, it wasn't nearly as common as assholes like you want to make it sound. Plenty of Japanese and German prisoners were murdered and tortured by American troops during the war. Does that mean we should believe that everyone who voted for FDR condoned murder?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

They did? Where was this hospital or ambulance service that refused to serve black people?

What about the deep south 100 years ago...

You have some evidence that Hospitals or ambulances refused to serve blacks?

I mean, people's worries weren't that they couldn't get a hospital, it's whether the local doctor would come out and lynch them.

You greatly over estimate the cruelty of White Southerners.

Do I need evidence? It's not the point here.

The point is that either you have a society where business owners, including hospitals, can decide who they want to serve based on their own views and beliefs and prejudices, or you have a society where people who are in the public domain, and make a business that is a public business, have to follow a standard which does not discriminate against people.

Which is it?

Do I over estimate the cruelty of White Southerners?

Lynching of Laura and L.D. Nelson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Laura was taken from her police cell, dragged to a bridge, raped then hung. If ISIS did this you'd say what?

Lynching of Jesse Washington - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"There was a celebratory atmosphere at the event, and many children attended during their lunch hour. Members of the mob castrated Washington, cut off his fingers, and hung him over a bonfire. He was repeatedly lowered and raised over the fire for about two hours. After the fire was extinguished, his charred torso was dragged through the town and parts of his body were sold as souvenirs."

Which part, exactly, have I over estimated?

What has that got to do with the current discussion??

Yes, you nigga's were treated badly back in the day, but I was not alive then and did not treat anyone including you that way.
Are you old enough to have ever been treated that way, or you just another nigga with a fucking grudge who can't let the past go and get on with life??
Why incite racism?? Because you are an instigating nigga and that is all you are capable of??

 

[Iceweasel]

Discrimination =Freedom? Hate, fear and suspicion are American values? Creating a second class citizen because you think it's a matter of Liberty and Freedom makes sense?

You're the one that makes no sense. Freedom means freedom to do this or that. You want to take away that and claim it more freedom. a store owner isn't creating classes of people, if the government did it, like in the segregated south, you would have a point.

 

[P@triot]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Discrimination =Freedom? Hate, fear and suspicion are American values? Creating a second class citizen because you think it's a matter of Liberty and Freedom makes sense?

What a pitiful attitude you have.

Sorry - I would have responded sooner but I spent the last 15 minutes on the floor laughing with tears in my eyes. The party that promotes promiscuity, depravity, drug use, lawlessness, and filth wants to bark about "American values" when they can't make an intelligent argument for their position? Really? No, really? Holy shit is that hilarious. Hands down the funniest thing I have seen on USMB.

Let me clue in you in on something my friend. Yes, discrimination does in fact equal freedom. Freedom includes the freedom to be an asshole (liberals prove that every day), the freedom to be racist, the freedom to be sexist, the freedom to be despicable (again, liberals prove that every day). I'm appalled by the promiscuity of liberals. But I don't try to outlaw them and never would. I embrace freedom. And the freedom I enjoy far outweighs the grotesque behaviors that liberals engage in.

You prove in your post that you're a typical left-wing communist. You have no interest in freedom. You're only interested in controlling everything and everyone so you can build the world that you think is utopia.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for telling us what the law is. I think we already know that. Freedom is the ability to do as you please despite what other people think. You have made it clear that you are opposed to freedom.

So anyone who disagrees that black people can be barred from any establishment simply because they are black, is opposed to freedom?

How does labelling the decision of some organization doing what it pleases "a membership issue" make it OK for them but not OK for other organizations? Why would it be OK for a cafe to have only white "members" but not only white customers?

I didn't say it was okay. I said it could possibly happen.

Would it be okay for a cafe to literally refuse to serve anyone who wasn't a member and members just all happened to be white? You're getting into the realm where it is very difficult to judge things.

There are plenty of clubs which have membership only. I happened to work for a company where membership was only for Jewish people and they had to be able to pay too. It's legal. Is it a problem?

At what point does a membership scheme break the law and at what point is membership discrimination valid?

It's a difficult question.

Religion has membership in a manner too.

You're missing the point. Why does "membership" make discrimination OK, but it's not OK if you're merely a "customer?" What's the moral distinction here? Don't bring up the legal distinction. Whether that is valid is precisely the topic under discussion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

You have the freedom to discriminate. But you can also choose not to start a business in the US, you can also choose not to follow the laws of the land and go somewhere else.

Is it freedom when someone feels they are not a normal member of society because they're told to sit at the back of the bus and they have to use different toilets.

I can't even believe that people in this day and age want to go back to segregation because they believe that segregation is freedom.

It's not.

You want a business in a public place, your business is open to all those unless they have done something which gives you a justifiable reason to kick them out.

 

[JoeB131]

The minute someone dies from eating E. Coli infected food in a restaurant, that establishment is headed for bankruptcy. Only a liberal would be stupid enough to patronize the place after hearing such news.

Really?


1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak occurred when 732 people were infected with the Escherichia coli O157:H7 bacterium originating from undercooked beef patties in hamburgers.[1][2][3] The outbreak involved 73 Jack in the Box restaurants in California, Idaho, Washington and Nevada and has been described as "far and away the most infamous food poison outbreak in contemporary history."[4][5][6] The majority of the victims were children aged under 10-years old.[7][8] Four children died (including one child who became ill due to contact with another child sick with e.coli) [9] and 178 other victims were left with permanent injury including kidney and brain damage.

Wow, they must be out of busines by now, right... Well, um, no.

Jack In The Box Home

In total, the chain has 2,200 locations, primarily serving the West Coast of the United States.

You're really a fucking stupid person, aren't you?

 

[P@triot]

Seriously? I've explained it like 20'x already, including the post you just responded to. I'm guessing you're struggling with some sort of reading comprehension condition?

You're assuming I'm going to bother actually reading that nonsense then.

Typical liberal - comments blindly without reading! It's no wonder you people come across as such buffoons.

Go back and read it. You'll not only learn something, but when you respond, you won't sound quite so insanely stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

You have the freedom to discriminate. But you can also choose not to start a business in the US, you can also choose not to follow the laws of the land and go somewhere else.

Is it freedom when someone feels they are not a normal member of society because they're told to sit at the back of the bus and they have to use different toilets.

I can't even believe that people in this day and age want to go back to segregation because they believe that segregation is freedom.

It's not.

You want a business in a public place, your business is open to all those unless they have done something which gives you a justifiable reason to kick them out.

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

 

[Iceweasel]

You want a business in a public place, your business is open to all those unless they have done something which gives you a justifiable reason to kick them out.

You don't need justification, dipshit. You would get into trouble if you made a politically incorrect statement for a protected class and they could prove it. All I have to do is say "no".

 

[JoeB131]

Segregation was government enforced, and no one wants to go back to that. There was a state law that said blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. It wasn't the decision of the bus company. Public restrooms were built by the state and local governments, so that isn't an example of freedom either. It's an example of government imposing its will on blacks. Separate lunch counters were also government enforced. The entire apparatus of segregation was enforced by law. Those laws were created in the first place because private business were not inclined to discriminate against paying customers and bigots didn't like it.

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

Private businesses were the ones who insisted on the laws, because they didn't want to serve "Those People' or they wanted to keep "Those people' in their place.

It was government- namely Federal Civil Rights Acts - that put an end to segregation.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your attempt to paint freedom as being responsible for segregation didn't hit the target. Government is what enforced segregation, not private businesses.

The high school I went to in 1969 Mississippi was not integrated. No business involved.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're missing the point. Why does "membership" make discrimination OK, but it's not OK if you're merely a "customer?" What's the moral distinction here? Don't bring up the legal distinction. Whether that is valid is precisely the topic under discussion.

No, I'm not missing the point.

There are different types situations here.

The first is a business. You open a business, you need a license issued by the govt. You agree to abide by laws. Society deems that discriminating someone within a normal business is wrong. I want to buy a pen, should it matter how I was born?

Membership is often different. It's usually not business orientated. I worked for extremely wealthy Jews, I'm not Jewish and none of the Mexicans appeared to be Jewish either. Members were also allowed to bring non-Jewish friends, business associates and so on along.

The only discrimination was based on whether you could join the club. Money was also a big factor. Also, a massive waiting list and many requirements, like you had to be nominated by a member in order to be able to get membership.

What's the difference?

There's a massive difference.

A business is considered to be open for people to use. It's an accepted part of life that if you want to buy something you can just rock up in a shop and buy it.
Membership places generally aren't that sort of place, we've had membership businesses for longer than the US has existed too. However they don't advertise themselves as being a "anyone can just turn up" sort of place.

 

[bripat9643]

The minute someone dies from eating E. Coli infected food in a restaurant, that establishment is headed for bankruptcy. Only a liberal would be stupid enough to patronize the place after hearing such news.

Really?


1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak occurred when 732 people were infected with the Escherichia coli O157:H7 bacterium originating from undercooked beef patties in hamburgers.[1][2][3] The outbreak involved 73 Jack in the Box restaurants in California, Idaho, Washington and Nevada and has been described as "far and away the most infamous food poison outbreak in contemporary history."[4][5][6] The majority of the victims were children aged under 10-years old.[7][8] Four children died (including one child who became ill due to contact with another child sick with e.coli) [9] and 178 other victims were left with permanent injury including kidney and brain damage.

Wow, they must be out of busines by now, right... Well, um, no.

Jack In The Box Home

In total, the chain has 2,200 locations, primarily serving the West Coast of the United States.

You're really a fucking stupid person, aren't you?

Congratulations, you managed to find a business that survived killing its customers. Note that only a small percentage (about 3%) of the franchises were involved, not the entire chain. Most of the stores involved did go bankrupt. They are franchises, don't you know. That means they are independent businesses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I consider these folks who want to use aparthied type behavior in order to not have to deal with or accept people because they don't like their color, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, etc. to be completely un-American. It's repulsive the joy you take in disaproving of and hating others, and it is truly un-American.

The true American spirit resides in FREEDOM ... Which includes the freedom of association.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others does not mean you have to neglect your own values and invite them to participate or diminish your desired course of action. Each of us has the freedom to engage life and opportunity as it suits our own needs, absent physical harm or the theft of another's property.

To hide behind false barriers established by the group think mentality is just another way our basic freedoms are eroded over . Nanny-State socialists don't know crap about what Freedom or American mean.

.

Yeah, liberals don't know that freedom allows you to ban black people from your business. I mean, what do they think this is, 2014? Bah, it's 1920s deep south here, and where did I leave my shot gun?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

No, I'm not missing the point.

There are different types situations here.

The first is a business. You open a business, you need a license issued by the govt. You agree to abide by laws. Society deems that discriminating someone within a normal business is wrong. I want to buy a pen, should it matter how I was born?

Membership is often different. It's usually not business orientated. I worked for extremely wealthy Jews, I'm not Jewish and none of the Mexicans appeared to be Jewish either. Members were also allowed to bring non-Jewish friends, business associates and so on along.

The only discrimination was based on whether you could join the club. Money was also a big factor. Also, a massive waiting list and many requirements, like you had to be nominated by a member in order to be able to get membership.

What's the difference?

There's a massive difference.

A business is considered to be open for people to use. It's an accepted part of life that if you want to buy something you can just rock up in a shop and buy it.
Membership places generally aren't that sort of place, we've had membership businesses for longer than the US has existed too. However they don't advertise themselves as being a "anyone can just turn up" sort of place.

So by your logic, SAMS buying club can discriminate based on race??
Why do you morons not think things through before posting ??

 

[P@triot]

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom doesn't guarantee that everyone will always behave in exemplar fashion. It includes the right to behave badly, so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. No one has a right to be served by any particular person or establishment.

You have the freedom to discriminate. But you can also choose not to start a business in the US, you can also choose not to follow the laws of the land and go somewhere else.

Is it freedom when someone feels they are not a normal member of society because they're told to sit at the back of the bus and they have to use different toilets.

I can't even believe that people in this day and age want to go back to segregation because they believe that segregation is freedom.

It's not.

You want a business in a public place, your business is open to all those unless they have done something which gives you a justifiable reason to kick them out.

So you're taking the guidelines for public institutions - ie government - (which has no right to discriminate) and trying to apply it to private institutions. And you wonder why you people lose every debate and sound absurd?

Nobody I know "wants to go back to segregation". You're literally making a straw-man argument because you can't defend your position with logic and reason.

Nobody has the right to force a bakery to bake a cake for them. Nobody. Period. End of story. Trying to make that case is every bit as asinine and absurd as saying that I have the right to force Carrie Underwood to perform a concert for me. The baker's product is a cake. Carried Underwood's product is her voice. If you can force a baker to bake a cake for you then I can force Carrie Underwood to sing to me. Of course, you'd have a fuck'n aneurysm if I tried to force Carrie Underwood to provide her product to me but you somehow believe that you can force a baker to provide their product to you.

There is a name for forcing someone to provide a good or service against their will - it's called slavery and it was outlawed years ago. Of course, liberals, being the racist pigs that that they are, fought against ending slavery in the Civil War and have been trying to bring slavery back ever since. They done a good job of it through taxes and legislation and now they are trying to expand it further that they should be able to force a baker to make cakes against their will.