Private property / public establishments

FWIW, its the same thing we go through openly carrying firearms in public. Even though its a constitutionally protected right, its still private property and subject to refusal of service and being requested to leave.

So, you want to open a bar and you're asking if it is OK to put up a sign that says "No N*s, Ks, F*s, or Trannies"?

Because it sounds to me like that is the question. And unless you want that bar full of Illinois Nazis, and I hate Illinois Nazis, it's suicide for your bar.

Sweaty boob cash is still legal tender.

I still don't see where the federal government need to have the authority to tell anyone they have to associate with anyone.

I don't like skin heads, do I have to deal with them? How about KKK members or those pesky Illinois Nazis. How about the belligerent drunk from the church of the almighty beer? How about the Westboro crowd? Can I tell them to GTFO or are they all covered by the civil rights legislation. How about the Black Panthers or the Muslim Brotherhood? Both of them are political groups, but also ethnic or religious.

Oh, and if a nasty, stank ass, person walks in, you should be able to refuse service no matter what they look like. Tell them to go take a shower and join the civilized part of the human race.

And I wouldn't want sweaty boob cash from a hot chick either. Might as well get it from a plumbers ass crack.

wbjones wrote: so you own a diner … and a black woman walks in and wants to be served … you're saying it's ok (because you own the diner) to refuse her service because you're a bigoted racist ? because that's where this would end up if it is deemed ok to refuse service

Yeah, why not?

I'd rather have [insert ism] shiny happy people be [insert ism] shiny happy people up front, so that I know not to give them any of my money. The idea that it's the governments job to keep other people from being berkeleying shiny happy people rubs me the wrong damn way.

Besides, anyone who said "I'm not serving [insert group]" isn't going to make enough money nowadays to stay in business long anyway.

patgizz wrote: So, you want to open a bar and you're asking if it is OK to put up a sign that says "No N*****s, K***s, F**s, or Trannies"? Because it sounds to me like that is the question. And unless you want that bar full of Illinois Nazis, and I hate Illinois Nazis, it's suicide for your bar.

And?

Stupid people should be allowed to fail spectacularly and often. On the flip side, it gives dildos somewhere to go be dildos where we don't have to put up with them.

Besides, I've been plenty of places where my cracker ass wasn't welcome, even without the sign. The thing that annoys me about this argument is most folks act like it'll only be whites keeping everyone else out.

me thinks this topic may be veering slightly towards locked status.. keep it clean folks

In reply to mad_machine:

It is, the whole problem with the question to begin with is that somewhere along the line some shiny happy person decided our founding documents were open to interpretation.....

yamaha wrote: In reply to mad_machine: It is, the whole problem with the question to begin with is that somewhere along the line some shiny happy person decided our founding documents were open to interpretation.....

you mean it's not a "Living breathing document" like they've taught in schools for at least the last 30 years?

EastCoastMojo wrote: Sweaty boob cash is still legal tender.

So are ass pennies.

yamaha wrote: In reply to wbjones: Or it could be a woman that has horrible hygiene, is half naked, and is attempting to pay with sweaty boob money but happened to be white......IDGAF what race you are, I'd politely say we wouldn't accept her payment and ask her to leave. If she didn't leave for whatever reason, call the cops. You can be asked to leave from any private establishment at any time for several reasons, failure to comply is criminal trespass. Posting signs at the door pertaining to race, religion, gender, or disabilities is where you can get in trouble.

completely agree … but I was pointing out where the idea of I can refuse service to anyone I want will end up

to refuse service you have to be VERY careful

""

wb has it exactly right. In a retail situation if you are going to refuse service you better document hell out of it. Because people WILL lie. No, it's not a retail situation but is illustrative of what I'm talking about. And no I'm not trying to start an argument.

http://www.wistv.com/story/26364569/video-obtained-after-pastor-naacp-claim-police-mistreatment

Too many times I've been on the wrong side of this type situation, I actually saw a customer tell my GM that he wasn't being treated well because he was black. Dummy didn't stop to consider the GM was black as well and he knew damn good and well that was the last thing I would do. Repairs were completed on time and at the price I quoted him, which was no different than I would have quoted anybody else.

As far as 'firing' a customer, again on the retail side it's occasionally necessary, difficult and must be well documented. It can and will come back to bite if not done properly, race/sex/religion etc can and will get dragged into it even if the individual was just being a garden variety jerk who needed to be ejected.

The problem is you just can’t deal with absolutes. It’s like trying to regulate indecency. What is Porn Vs what is art? The standard definition is that ‘you know porn when you see it’. That’s fine, but what one person, or society in general considers ‘porn’ is time and culture dependent. An ‘artistic’ photo on the cover of a magazine that is lauded today as artistic would have been considered indecent or disgusting 100 years ago in this country (or still in some cultures) and landed the magazine, photographer and publisher in a whole heap of trouble.

• So 100 years ago it may have been acceptable by society and the culture of the time to have a sign saying ‘no blacks’ outside your shop.

• 50 years ago it may have been acceptable by society and the culture of the time to have a sign saying ‘no long haired freaky people’ outside your shop.

• 30 years ago it may have been acceptable by society and the culture of the time to have a sign saying ‘no gays’ outside your shop.

• For a short time 12 years 11 months and 16 days ago it may (or may not) have been acceptable to say ‘no Muslims’ outside your shop.

• Today it may be acceptable to say ‘No KKK’ outside your shop.

So today you shouldn’t and can’t say ‘I’m not serving you because you’re a one legged black Muslim lesbian’, but you can say ‘I’m not serving you because you are only wearing a loin cloth, haven’t bathed in a month and are making the rest of my customers nauseous with your smell’. Now the issue may come if you turn away a one legged black Muslim lesbian who is only wearing a loin cloth, hasn’t bathed in a month and is making the rest of your customers nauseous with their smell. If you did that you would instantly have a E36 M3 storm with half the population saying you’re a sexist racist homophobic anti-Muslim and the other defending your right to throw smelly tramps out of your shop/store/restaurant/high end lingerie store.

I’d like to say that in the end that public opinion will help way business owners to do the right thing by voting with their dollars, but that’s not always the case as Chick-fil-A is still run by a group of homophobic dinosaurs and hasn’t gone out of business etc. etc.

that's because Chick-fil-a serves better food than most of their competition. That is the rub. Seinfeld had the "soup Nazi" that treated his customers like absolute drek, but still had a line to get in.. because he had the best soup in town... The Market works well for weeding out those businesses that do not behave well, but if you have the worlds best product.. sometimes they can hang on for a very long time.

FWIW Chick-Fil-A pulled out of here about 2 years ago due to slumping sales..

Duke wrote: I've gone around this ring a couple of times with my more PC-oriented acquaintances. They contend that privately-owned businesses should be forced to serve everyone. I contend that the First Amendment (which they support) gives people the right to hold and state opinions that may be truly assholic in nature, and **that is the cost of freedom of speech.** I further contend that this same logic entitles a business owner, tradesperson, or professional the absolute right to choose who they accept as customers or clients, and who they allow into their establishments. Would they be ignorant asses to turn away business based on personal bigotry? Sure. Should they be allowed to be ignorant asses if they choose to be? Sure. The alternative is the PC hell we are currently voting our way towards. Discuss. **Politely,** please.

Put yourself into the shoes of the people you are advocating discriminating against.

You walk into an electronics store and the latest 60" 4K 3D television is on sale for $40...but they don't sell to people named Duke.

So you cross the street to grab something to eat in the only restaurant in town, but the "No Dukes" sign out front mean you will go hungry.

So you head to the gas station to fill up so you can get home, and gas for Dukes is $32/gallon and $2.00 for everyone else.

So you have to grab a bus ticket to get home, and you have to stand in the back since it is a privately-owned bus line and they don't allow Dukes to sit up front.

You try to hail a cab at the bus station, but the cabbies don't pick up any Dukes, as is their right.

So you have to walk home, and you trip because you are hungry and tired. You have broken your ankle, but the ambulance is privately-owned and they don't have to help you if they don't want to.

So you hobble to the ER, where you see another "No Dukes" sign. Dang! I guess you will have to splint it yourself, but oh wait!

The pharmacy across the street doesn't allow Dukes through the front door!

So you sit down on the curb and die of internal hemorrhaging of the ankle. But at least the private businesses didn't have to extend any services to anyone they didn't want to.

wbjones wrote: so you own a diner … and a black woman walks in and wants to be served … you're saying it's ok (because you own the diner) to refuse her service because you're a bigoted racist ? because that's where this would end up if it is deemed ok to refuse service

That's exactly what I'm saying. The First Amendment has been defended time and time again as protecting the rights of people to say stupid hateful things. I'm allowed to get a gathering permit and have my Illinois Nazi parade if I want, because the Constitution understands that in order to allow liberty, you MUST allow people the liberty to be shiny happy citizens. Otherwise, you instantly get into an interpretive urination match about who gets to arbitrate acceptability.

Curmudgeon wrote: wb has it exactly right. In a retail situation if you are going to refuse service you better document hell out of it. Because people WILL lie. No, it's not a retail situation but is illustrative of what I'm talking about. And no I'm not trying to start an argument. http://www.wistv.com/story/26364569/video-obtained-after-pastor-naacp-claim-police-mistreatment Too many times I've been on the wrong side of this type situation, I actually saw a customer tell my GM that he wasn't being treated well because he was black. Dummy didn't stop to consider the GM was black as well and he knew damn good and well that was the last thing I would do. Repairs were completed on time and at the price I quoted him, which was no different than I would have quoted anybody else. As far as 'firing' a customer, again on the retail side it's occasionally necessary, difficult and must be well documented. It can and will come back to bite if not done properly, race/sex/religion etc can and will get dragged into it even if the individual was just being a garden variety jerk who needed to be ejected.

AND, if there wasn't a law against it - if a business owner's freedom to associate was protected the same way his/her freedom of expression is - this situation would never come up. A problem customer would get nasty, the owner would call the police. The police would show up and say to the nasty customer: "The owner has told you to leave. Time to go." End of story. There wouldn't be any careful documentation needed - you're on my property after I have said you can't be there, so, OUT YOU GO.

The best we can do is vote with our own business, both buying and selling. I agree it would be ignorance bordering on insanity to refuse a reasonable customer of any flavor. I'd never do it and never have done it. That doesn't mean it should be illegal to deny service for any reason you wish, if the business is your property.

The fact that Domino's Pizza (owner Tom Donahue donates - or at least used to - millions of dollars to anti-abortion causes) and Chik-Fil-A (with its widely publicized alleged hiring policies) are still in business just proves that those particular issues aren't seen as enough of an issue to prevent the general public from shopping there. People who care don't buy there any more. People who don't care, do.

I'm in the mood for Pecan Pie.

Perhaps with a scoop of vanilla ice cream.

Duke wrote: < AND, if there wasn't a law against it - if a business owner's freedom to associate was protected the same way his/her freedom of expression is - **this situation would never come up.** A problem customer would get nasty, the owner would call the police. The police would show up and say to the nasty customer: "The owner has told you to leave. Time to go." End of story. There wouldn't be any careful documentation needed - you're on my property after I have said you can't be there, so, OUT YOU GO.

utopia … but with the racist bigots that still abound in this country, that just won't work …

you're black … get out of my diner … you're black, go to the back of the bus …

I totally agree with the nasty, smelly, half-dressed customer being kicked out … but as soon as you allow any and every store owner to kick out any and every customer that they want … the racist thing will rear it's head

that, if for no other reason, is why the Civil Rights bill came into being

Only person I have ever asked to leave the store was yelling at me because I wouldn't let him use my private bathroom.

Luckily, very few people buy military surplus with boob sweat cash, but you'd be surprised.

Duke, we tried your method, and it didn't work. Instead what happened was what pinchvalve describes. So, we as a society decided that was not the right solution and tried correcting it. So far the corrected version is working a lot better than what we had before. Unless you're a racist shiny happy person that wants to kick black people (or gay people, or etc..) out of your store.

Don't like it? Blame the white shiny happy people that spent decades taking every chance to run down black people. The "market" had every chance in the world to correct it and didn't, for decades and decades. So unless you have some magic pill that can correct people's shiny happy person behavior, get over it and accept the civil rights act as attempting to level the playing field for people with no power.

N Sperlo wrote: Only person I have ever asked to leave the store was yelling at me because I wouldn't let him use my private bathroom.

Do you have a bathroom for customers to use?

dculberson wrote: Duke, we tried your method, and it didn't work. Instead what happened was what pinchvalve describes. So, we as a society decided that was not the right solution and tried correcting it. So far the corrected version is working a lot better than what we had before. Unless you're a racist shiny happy person that wants to kick black people (or gay people, or etc..) out of your store. Don't like it? Blame the white shiny happy people that spent decades taking every chance to run down black people. The "market" had every chance in the world to correct it and didn't, for decades and decades. So unless you have some magic pill that can correct people's shiny happy person behavior, get over it and accept the civil rights act as attempting to level the playing field for people with no power.

Exactly.

The Civil Rights Act was a much needed piece of legislation. Keep in mind that it is now 50 years old and the people whose actions necessitated its passing are pretty much all dead or no longer relevant (thankfully). No sane business owner would dream of trying to return to those days before it was passed. I'm not suggesting it be disbanded or removed, just to keep in mind that society HAS moved on and in a good way.

That still leaves a business owner in the precarious position of having to balance the the needs of the business against the negative perceptions that a particular customer might bring to that business. It may have absolutely zero to do with skin color etc and everything to do with their actions but you can bet your ass that said business owner will be accused of racism because that's a sure ticket to a nice fat settlement and sometimes I swear there are setups. Yeah, I'm a damn cynic.

dculberson wrote: Duke, we tried your method, and it didn't work. Instead what happened was what pinchvalve describes. So, we as a society decided that was not the right solution and tried correcting it. So far the corrected version is working a lot better than what we had before. Unless you're a racist shiny happy person that wants to kick black people (or gay people, or etc..) out of your store. Don't like it? Blame the white shiny happy people that spent decades taking every chance to run down black people. The "market" had every chance in the world to correct it and didn't, for decades and decades. So unless you have some magic pill that can correct people's shiny happy person behavior, get over it and accept the civil rights act as attempting to level the playing field for people with no power.

Sums it up very nicely.

All this reminds me a bit of a few years ago when my divorce court judge ( a lovely lady fresh off a judicial suspension) told me when I said it didn't seem exactly fair: "Mr. Allroad, it's the LAW and the LAW is fair."

I'm glad we live in a time when all laws are perfect and can't be improved

spitfirebill wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Only person I have ever asked to leave the store was yelling at me because I wouldn't let him use my private bathroom.

Do you have a bathroom for customers to use?

berkeley OFF!

I mean... No, sir.

In all honesty, it is just nasty. They have always smelled bad and I'm not going to be the one cleaning them. I rarely leave the floor and get paid minimum wage for being on the floor to make sure we don't get robbed. Awesome place to hear war stories, though.