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

[JakeStarkey]

You have no right not to serve someone who is behaving himself and is cleanly dressed.

Sux to be you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now, if a shop owner insults someone gravely, are they protected? No they're not. Telling someone they're not welcome in their shop because of the way they were born, is that right? Is it moral? Is it reaching the edges and beyond of freedom? I'd say it is.

Are you saying we have no right to insult someone?

Nope. I'm saying harming other people is not protected. You harm someone in a national newspaper, it's different to saying it at work. You deny black people, all black people, the ability to come into your shop, what are the chances you're going to end up in a national newspaper?

So, it sounds like your argument is based on the idea that we have no right to say something that might hurt someone's feelings?

Seriously?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

A lot of things have fine lines. You lie about your boss to work colleagues is one thing. An employee goes to a national newspaper and prints lies about the CEO of the company, it's another thing.

What's the difference?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deny services based on color, and that person will pay, severely.

 

[MaryL]

Old TV shows back in the day used to have that certification and the seal of approval. No gays or jokes about cum or porno, really is this progress?

 

[dblack]

Now, if a shop owner insults someone gravely, are they protected? No they're not. Telling someone they're not welcome in their shop because of the way they were born, is that right? Is it moral? Is it reaching the edges and beyond of freedom? I'd say it is.

Are you saying we have no right to insult someone?

Nope. I'm saying harming other people is not protected. You harm someone in a national newspaper, it's different to saying it at work. You deny black people, all black people, the ability to come into your shop, what are the chances you're going to end up in a national newspaper?

So, it sounds like your argument is based on the idea that we have no right to say something that might hurt someone's feelings?

Seriously?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

A lot of things have fine lines. You lie about your boss to work colleagues is one thing. An employee goes to a national newspaper and prints lies about the CEO of the company, it's another thing.

What's the difference?

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the customer's choice, not the business owner, who is subject to PA laws.

 

[MaryL]

I will take Mayberry RFD anyday of the week over all the trash they are pumping out now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Actually what I'm saying is, when you start a business you go from being a private person, to a public person. If you don't want to be a public person, DON'T START A BUSINESS.

That's a completely false premise. You're literally making stuff up as you go. I've got news for you, you don't get to decide for society that starting a business makes you a "public person". I don't lose my Constitutional rights because I started a business. I don't lose my privacy because I started a business. And I sure as hell don't owe society anything because I started my own personal, private, business.

That's the problem with liberals. You guys believe that businesses owe society something. They don't. And if you think they do, then you should start a business and you should owe society.

I'm not saying people want to go back to segregation, I'm making a point.

If a cafe is allowed to have separate areas for whites and blacks, separate toilets, if buses are allowed to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus etc, what impact do you think this would have?

Absolutely, positively, none. In fact, it's almost certain that that business would go out of business in no time. But either way, whether it went out of business or whether it flourished, it's the right of the private business owner on private property to decide for themselves who they want to enter into business transactions with.

And someone would do it because there are down right ignorant racists out there. I doubt you go on Stormfront, I've not been on for quite a while, I usually go on to find evidence of what racists, fascist, neo-Nazis are saying, but maybe you should go see.

You are correct. I've never even heard of that site. And frankly, I have no desire to go see what ignorant people are ranting about. Just out of curiosity, why would you waste your time checking out what those people are spewing?

The number of far right racist groups increased by 50% from the time Obama got nominated for the Democratic ticket, to when he won the election. The number has increased even more since then/ Partly because of the economy, partly because a black man just happened to have the audacity to be president.

Actually, it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Obama being black (that false narrative just fits the Dumbocrat Party nicely because they think they can convince the American people that conservatives are "racists" and that communists "care") and everything to do with the fact that Obama is an unhinged, radical-marxist who loathes America and the U.S. Constitution and dreams of a communist utopia. You don't have to take my word for it. Go read his autobiography. He's quite candid in it. States how he "sought out marxist professors" at Columbia. States how Frank Marshall Davis, card-carrying member of the Communist Party U.S.A., was his "mentor". Those are all words from Obama himself and there are many more. That is why there was a rise in right-wing radical militias. They could care less that Barack Obama is black or purple. They do, however, very much care about their freedom that the Dumbocrats are desperate to strip them of.

You're not forcing someone to provide something against their will. They don't have to serve anyone, they can close shop and never go back. They made a CHOICE by opening their business. That choice involves more responsibility than simple private life.

They have no responsibility. That's a perception in your own mind. Period. There is no "responsibility". When they start a business, they enter into no agreement and they sign no contract. That "responsibility" simply does not exist outside of your own mind.

Furthermore, if that's the case, please address an entertainer or singer. By your "logic", I can force them to come to my home and sing for me. So obviously, you agree with that since you believe that a baker should be forced to perform their trade and that anyone who earns a living for themselves are "public" and have a "responsibility".

However in private life I can't go around treated black people as I like. There are hundreds or thousands of laws which say I can't. I can't just go up to a black person and insult them racially, it's against the law. If a business owner says "I'm not serving you because you're black" it's an insult the same as if a private person did, and a business has more responsibility.

What world do you live in?!? You can go out into the street at any moment you like and scream "n*gger" at a black person. Where is there a law that says you can't like you just stated? I'd love to see you link to that law which does not exist and never has.

If a person comes into my restaurant and dies, I might get investigated, especially if it was my food that killed them. I can't serve what I want, I can't serve poorly cooked food that is a danger to the customers. I could list hundreds of such things.

Right? What's your point? That since you're not allowed to kill people you're also not allowed to refuse to enter into business transactions with them?

By this form of "logic" here, then you are saying that rape laws do not exist and I cannot be prosecuted for rape. Because, after all, if someone is forced by law to enter into business transactions with someone they don't want to simply because they entered into business transactions with someone they did want to made them "public" in your mind, then a woman who enters into consensual sex with someone they wanted to makes them "public" and they can no longer turn me away for sex.

I eagerly await your response to this one my friend. These are your words here, so please explain.

As for your last statement. I'm not a freaking idiot, so don't make idiotic statements.

No idea what you are referring to with this statement but I can only guess that I made a point for which you don't like but can't really dispute.

It's funny how you can go from business having to follow certain rules, to "businesses owe something" lark.

You seem to think that places being able to go back to days of segregation would have no impact. When black kids get shot by the police for seemingly no reason, what happens? People start RIOTING. You think black people are going to allow society to go back to segregation without taking this to a destructive fight? Are you deluded or something?

As for Stormfront, well, I've looked into quite a few far right groups and people, from the BNP in the UK, Svoboda in the Ukraine and other European groups and their links with people like David Duke, Stephen "Don" Black who happens to run Stormfront and happened to try and take over a country back in the 1980s, and Preston Wiginton. All very lovely people if you happen to not be black, liberal or anything else. The sort of people who, if allowed to segregate, would, just for the hell of peeing off black people and trying to start a RACE WAR.

Oh, and you'd be surprised to know that many of the posts are similar to ones on here, only with a little more colorful language.

You say it has nothing to do with Obama being black that more racist groups appear. Just after you've said you know sweet FA about racist groups. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Try this for starters

Giving them power over us - Stormfront

"I am profoundly concerned over how we give our enemies power over our culture, our heritage, our future, our government and our race. In my opinion it is because we give non-European races power over our feelings. They torment us by calling us "racists" and accusing us of "hate."" "our enemies" = "non-European races" "You are spot on,these sub-human beasts are not beneficial to our well being,nor are they beneficial to our culture...+1 " [TBODY] [/TBODY] [TBODY][TR][TD]"Parasites they are The Jewish cohesiveness is strong and most Whites are so gullible... . "

[TBODY]

[/TBODY]

Just a few posts of individuals who really don't seem to like black or Jewish people.

Back to businesses then. So a business doesn't need to get license in order to be able to operate?

Licenses Permits Covered

I can't count how many different licenses there are to do business in NY state. Why have so many licenses if you can just start a business and ho ahead and do what you like?

As for going out into the street and shouting "n*gger" to someone. Is it a crime?


Civil Rights Act of 1968 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Civil rights act 1968 "made it a federal crime to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone … by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin.”"

"Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of [fair housing] rights"... "because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting."

This is limited, because it's a federal law, it can only happen when the victim is taking part in one of six different activities. So, if you do this while someone is going to school, it's a crime, for example.



[/TD][/TR][/TBODY]

 

[MaryL]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

And you even have to serve "n*ggers"! What is the world coming to?

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! So the restaurants involved were following government guidelines for cooking meat, but those guidelines were found to be inadequate. In other words, government caused the whole mess in the first place.

You just shot down your entire case.

Well,no, not really. But since you are completely retarded, you obviously would't get the point I was trying to make.

(It was that the market doesn't make business behave, government does.)

Yes, really. You posted the evidence yourself. The government determined that the minimum temperature for cooked meat of 140 degrees that it had set previously was insufficient to kill E. Coli and they raised it to 155 degrees. All other fast food chains were obviously following the 140 degree guideline because, as your article states, they all had to change their procedures as well.

 

[bripat9643]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

Sorry, but there is no moral principle which says a private citizen can't treat other citizens any way they want so long as they don't initiate force against that person and thereby violate their rights. You have no right to be served by any private citizen. That's the bottom line.

Whether it "goes back to the days of segregation" is irrelevant. It's also wrong because segregation was government enforced.

If I want to get out of it should be determined by some government bureaucrat. Jews could get out of going to a concentration camp in Nazi Germany by leaving the country. That's the same means you propose, and the motive is exactly the same.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This template can be applied to all manner of libertarian idiocy:

"Hey, that restaurant refuses to serve black people!"

Rational Person- "That's in violation of public accommodations laws."

Rottweiler - "Let the market forces do their work and wait for that company to go out of business in 60 or 70 years. We don't want no gummit telling us what to do. The Founding Fathers never wanted public accommodations laws! It's unconstitutional!"

 

[bripat9643]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

And you even have to serve "n*ggers"! What is the world coming to?

Accusing your critics of racism is the only argument you've got, isn't it, Weirdo?

 

[bripat9643]

You have no right not to serve someone who is behaving himself and is cleanly dressed.

Sux to be you.

Of course you do. If he's wearing an Isis T-shirt, I would kick him the hell out of my business.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Huh? I'm really not sure what you're saying here. I've agreed that slandering people, spreading lies, inciting violence, etc, should be illegal. What we're talking about is not doing what someone else wants you to. It just seems crazy to me that we're trying to make that illegal. I understand the desire to discourage bigotry, but that just seems like a dumb way to go about it. People should always have the right to abstain from doing business with someone they don't like, no matter how inane their reasons.

If black people are denied access to shops and services, or have limited access or whatever, this goes beyond just someone doing what they wish. It's presenting a society in which people can be treated as second class citizens based on how they were born. It also goes back to days of segregation. It's not just a simple "someone's free choice".

If a person wants to get out of serving someone, it shouldn't be that hard. What they can't do is to be explicit about it.

Sorry, but there is no moral principle which says a private citizen can't treat other citizens any way they want so long as they don't initiate force against that person and thereby violate their rights. You have no right to be served by any private citizen. That's the bottom line.

Whether it "goes back to the days of segregation" is irrelevant. It's also wrong because segregation was government enforced.

If I want to get out of it should be determined by some government bureaucrat. Jews could get out of going to a concentration camp in Nazi Germany by leaving the country. That's the same means you propose, and the motive is exactly the same.

Really? No moral principle that you don't treat people differently because of how they were born?

No, you don't have a right to be served by any person. This isn't necessarily about being served. It's about not being served and the reasons for not being served. You have the right to be treated equally and to expect that you won't be treated as second class just because of the way you were born. This is a moral principle in the US that has been enshrined within the system of rights, namely the 14th Amendment and elsewhere.

Whether it goes back to the days of segregation is VERY relevant. Because you'd see the problems that would caused if people felt this is where the US was headed.

As for your analogy to Jews, WHAT?

 

[bripat9643]

Deny services based on color, and that person will pay, severely.

We know what the law is, Fakey. You're un-excelled at the art of stating what everyone already knows.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Used to be, back in the good old days, I wasn't required to allow anyone, queers or other perverts or hateful violent dingbats in my coffee shop. Back in the good old days these things were obvious. Now a days, we got to tippy toe around as to NOT offend offensive assholes . I am not finding this very progressive.

And you even have to serve "n*ggers"! What is the world coming to?

Accusing your critics of racism is the only argument you've got, isn't it, Weirdo?

I'm making a point. You don't like the point? That's your problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have no right not to serve someone who is behaving himself and is cleanly dressed.

Sux to be you.

Of course you do. If he's wearing an Isis T-shirt, I would kick him the hell out of my business.

What if it's the Egyptian god Isis?