Private property / public establishments

I believe in property rights. If a store owner is a racist prick and wants to discriminate against some group or another, I think that should be his right. I also think that he will soon go out of business if he tries something like this. I would not spend my money at a place that was for whites only for example. The problem with having a viewpoint like mine, is that it is hard to explain my position to typical people who only hear that I must be a racist and pro-discrimination, when in fact, I am pro-liberty.

Apexcarver wrote: From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 See Title II and VII The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Came here to say this, and I'll advise anyone thinking about re-making America's past mistakes with a different minority; please don't.

Those of you who say he should have the right to be racist, I won't accuse you of racism but I will accuse you of not knowing history. There may not be enough well-intentioned people out there who would boycott a business that discriminates against certain customers - at least in certain areas. There's a reason that law was needed in the first place.

KyAllroad wrote:

dculberson wrote: 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

You're obviously being sarcastic in the second part. Yet by agreeing with the quoted poster, it seems that you're saying the Civil Rights Act doesn't need to be improved...?

KyAllroad wrote:

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

Nice addition to the discussion, it sure helps when we all have helpful input and add our two cents to the pot. Especially when we address what the poster actually said and not the imaginary thing we think they said.

OH WAIT I CAN PLAY SARCASM TOO AND IT'S NEITHER FUNNY NOR HELPFUL

Scary politically correct people are scary.

At the end of the day, there is nothing stopping a store owner from denying somebody service on a reason that won't get them in trouble. Its the same thing as firing somebody.

But I'm on the side you should be allowed to serve (or not serve) whoever you want. This obviously doesn't apply to the government. Which is funny, because a lot of people here are ignoring the fact (when it comes to US racism of the pass) that the government (both federal, state, and municipal) also participated in the discrimination.

Its not a human right to buy (insert product here). It certainly is a right to health care.

But the PC people can make it out to be one and the same thing. Thats cool.

GameboyRMH wrote: Those of you who say he should have the right to be racist, I won't accuse you of racism but I will accuse you of not knowing history. There may not be enough well-intentioned people out there who would boycott a business that discriminates against certain customers - at least in certain areas. There's a reason that law was needed in the first place.

Just think of what would have happened to any and everybody of middle eastern descent after 9/11? Or anybody who even looked middle eastern? And you can look at Ferguson Mo. to see what happens when Racism seethes just below the surface. (I am not calling the shooting racist.. but what happened afterwards does not happen in a happy and racism free community)

GameboyRMH wrote:

Apexcarver wrote: From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 See Title II and VII The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Came here to say this, and I'll advise anyone thinking about re-making America's past mistakes with a different minority; please don't. Those of you who say he should have the right to be racist, I won't accuse you of racism but I will accuse you of not knowing history. There may not be enough well-intentioned people out there who would boycott a business that discriminates against certain customers - at least in certain areas. There's a reason that law was needed in the first place.

I agree with you.

Say you own a grocery store, you decide that you do not want "group x" to be allowed at your store. The next closest grocery store is 20 miles away. You then ARE disadvantaging "group x". You get a community of narrow minded people, you successfully run "group x" from the area due to increased costs of living.

Does that sound reasonable to you guys?

Dont get me wrong, I get it http://youtu.be/wyD9ftpzKj0

But there are and should be some limits.

HiTempguy wrote: Scary politically correct people are scary. At the end of the day, there is nothing stopping a store owner from denying somebody service on a reason that won't get them in trouble. Its the same thing as firing somebody.

Yes there is, you can be sued if the customer believes you denied them service based on their race or other protected class.

But I'm on the side you should be allowed to serve (or not serve) whoever you want. This obviously doesn't apply to the government. Which is funny, because a lot of people here are ignoring the fact (when it comes to US racism of the pass) that the government (both federal, state, and municipal) also participated in the discrimination. Its not a human right to buy (insert product here). It certainly is a right to health care. But the PC people can make it out to be one and the same thing. Thats cool.

Who's "ignoring the fact that the government ... participated?" I certainly am not. I didn't address it, but I also didn't address any other of 10,000 valid issues surrounding race relations in the US. Doesn't mean I'm ignoring it.

And, denying someone the ability to buy something is effectively shutting them out of the community. You also have no right to sell something, and what we - as a society - have decided is to revoke your ability to sell things if you choose to decide whether or not to sell something to people based upon certain protected characteristics.

Note I never said it's perfect, but I did say it was better than what we had. Because it is. America is a better, stronger country than it was thanks to it.

T.J. wrote: I believe in property rights. If a store owner is a racist prick and wants to discriminate against some group or another, I think that should be his right. I also think that he will soon go out of business if he tries something like this. I would not spend my money at a place that was for whites only for example. The problem with having a viewpoint like mine, is that it is hard to explain my position to typical people who only hear that I must be a racist and pro-discrimination, when in fact, I am pro-liberty.

the only problem is that the market place rejected your idea that it would fix itself …that's why we have the Civil Rights Act

I personally have no opinion about your racist or non-racist standing … but going back to what you're advocating would totally destroy the gains that have been made over the last 50 yrs.

I find it entertaining to see a discussion board that is (probably) comprised of 90% white, heterosexual males discuss how civil rights laws are infringing on their personal freedoms.

Please go on...

Cone_Junkie wrote: I find it entertaining to see a discussion board that is (probably) comprised of 90% white, heterosexual males discuss how civil rights laws are infringing on their personal freedoms. Please go on...

I find it entertaining that happening to be a white, heterosexual male automatically means that my thoughts on the subject of civil rights are either humorous or invalid.

Never mind the fact that my (white, hetero) father ran a business throughout the '60s, '70s, and '80s in a location where easily 50% (or more) of our customers were black. Never mind that I'm 100% in favor of marriage equality and always have been. Hell, I think marriages should be allowed to include as many mutually-consenting, non-related adults as you (as a group) want. Never mind that my best man is gay, and I happily attended HIS wedding when he was finally allowed to get married.

Just because I'm a regular, middle aged white guy, I don't get to feel that my freedoms have been infringed?

In reply to Duke:

Of course not, you silly oppressor. Your ancestors may or may not have been mean to minorities at some point.

Yeah, there's a discussion on another board I sometimes frequent to the effect that white guys these days are responsible for what their ancestors did 100 years ago.

Look, I cannot help what happened back then. I had zero to do with it. I hate that it happened. But I am not going to be told I have to take it in the shorts in any way for the mistakes of my ancestors.

In the current day, I treat everybody equally which is to say I am misanthropic; I hate everyone equally without regards to sex, color, religion etc.

dculberson wrote: Yes there is, you can be sued if the customer believes you denied them service based on their race or other protected class.

And unless you explicitly said to them why you were denying them service, there would be no way for this to stick, unless if the US has truly gone over the edge lately and allows no proof of guilt to convict somebody of a thought crime (which is what this is, which is scary business indeed).

Say you own a grocery store, you decide that you do not want "group x" to be allowed at your store. The next closest grocery store is 20 miles away.

And if said owner closes down said grocery store, then EVERYONE is inconvenienced. Being inconvenienced (last time I checked) isn't a right. Holding opinions, thoughts, or ideas isn't illegal. But you guys sure would like it to be.

Like I said, scary business.

I would serve anybody and anyone that wanted to buy from me as a business. But the mere fact that somebody tries to take away the ability for who I would do business with is mind blowing.

Edit-

You also have no right to sell something, and what we - as a society - have decided is to revoke your ability to sell things if you choose to decide whether or not to sell something to people based upon certain protected characteristics</blockquote. I would disagree that that is how it actually works, but its not worth arguing about. You can continue to live in PC fairy tale land, I will live in reality

Datsun1500 wrote: All of us White people are to blame, mostly because of slavery. Has anyone ever done the math to figure that one out? I was born in 1970. My mother was born in 1947. Her mother (Grandmother) in 1926. Her Mother (Great Grandmother) in 1905. Assume 21 years between generations before that, so her mother (Great Great Grandmother) in 1884, next one (Great Great Great Grandmother) in 1863 (so she was 2 when they were freed) meaning her mother (Great Great Great Great Grandmother) would be 23 and not likely wealthy enough to own slaves. So at best count my Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandparents are the ones that could have owned slaves IF they lived in the US and IF they were wealthy at that time. Moms family came here in 1900 and Dad came over in 1964, how is it my fault?

Slavery is just one symptom of recognizing people are all equal. There's also letting all own land, all vote, all ride any bus, all drink from the same fountain, all attend any school, all be in the military, etc- all equally and without difference.

If you think it's just about slavery, you may want to look at that again. And much of that equality STILL isn't ironed out (currently, a part of society is being judged whether or not it's allowed to be married, as an example). Which means that it is within your lifetime.

Ending slavery didn't make everyone equal. It just ended slavery.

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.

My +1 button isn't working. It just says "broke" when I try to upvote. I'm quoting this for truth.

Duke wrote: Just because I'm a regular, middle aged white guy, I *don't* get to feel that my freedoms have been infringed?

It's starting to sound like you're mad because white folks can't discriminate in whatever way they want anymore. I must be missing something...

Help! HELP! I'm being repressed!

markwemple wrote: As far as the law goes, Apexcarver hit it. If you look at our history, I think that it is a slippery slope and I won't patronize places that limit who may enter based on sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. I'm a PCA member and honestly wish they would let in anyone and not just p-car owners. Although, a 924 parts car is usually practically free so.....

I sold my 911 a couple years ago... am a current PCA member and instruct for PCA events. Are you sure they have that rule? Maybe it's just you?

Cone_Junkie wrote: I find it entertaining to see a discussion board that is (probably) comprised of 90% white, heterosexual males discuss how civil rights laws are infringing on their personal freedoms. Please go on...

Quoted For Evidence:
I'm still not quite sure how you have survived the patios with inflamatory posts like these.....

Back on topic, as I said before, its the property owners right to deny anyone service/request that anyone leave their property for pretty much any reason. Posted signs and or a consistant "none of this type" action could get you in hot water. Say for example you own a fancy dinner establishment and someone came in being discourteous, disruptive, and just happened to differ in skin tone to you......should you cower in fear of a racism lawsuit(any race), or should you actually judge said person by their character and kick them out? I know I would.....doesn't matter your skin tone, nor does it matter your background. Throw the race card around me and I will most likely call you a racist. End of story.

What about sick people? Can I just say "You look like E36 M3, get away from the buffet with your snot crusted dick-beaters you filthy berkeley" or would that be considered a violation of some code?

I may have actually said exactly that as a peer patron once, which aside from being a little shocking to the other animals in the room, I imagine was perfectly legal.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: What about sick people? Can I just say "You look like E36 M3, get away from the buffet with your snot crusted dick-beaters you filthy berkeley" or would that be considered a violation of some code? I may have actually said exactly that as a peer patron once, which aside from being a little shocking to the other animals in the room, I imagine was perfectly legal.

totally legal.

Datsun1500 wrote: All of us White people are to blame, mostly because of slavery. Has anyone ever done the math to figure that one out? I was born in 1970. My mother was born in 1947. Her mother (Grandmother) in 1926. Her Mother (Great Grandmother) in 1905. Assume 21 years between generations before that, so her mother (Great Great Grandmother) in 1884, next one (Great Great Great Grandmother) in 1863 (so she was 2 when they were freed) meaning her mother (Great Great Great Great Grandmother) would be 23 and not likely wealthy enough to own slaves. So at best count my Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandparents are the ones that could have owned slaves IF they lived in the US and IF they were wealthy at that time. Moms family came here in 1900 and Dad came over in 1964, how is it my fault?

Think of this as an accounting exercise:

The entire nation benefitted from wealth that was stolen from slaves. Not individuals, but everyone. Billions upon billions of uncompensated man-hours went into the pockets of slave owners, who then threw it into the economy through their taxes and investment. That theft continued through the 1960's when blacks were given equal access to the spoils, so we were effectively benefiting from their misery up until pretty damn recently.

Virtually every black in this country would be richer had slavery and jim crow not existed. The nation would be poorer had they been treated fairly. The money that was stolen from their ancestors has gone into everything around us. Corporations and government got dollars they wouldn't have otherwise seen. We're still benefiting from it today. Every single business in this country has a bit of slave and jim crow money in it.

When your family moved to America after slavery or jim crow laws ended, they're still assuming some of our national debt. That's how it works. You don't get to buy a company without assuming its debt. Debt stay on the books until it gets repaid. It was never repaid, obviously, or blacks wouldn't have a lower standard of living than the rest of the country.

The argument is whether you think it's even possible to repay the debt. If so, who gets the payment and how do you pay it back equitably.

In this case, we're not doing with money, but with a societal mea culpa by creating protected classes. OK, tell ya what, black people: we'll tell businesses operating using our currency, infrastructure and legal system that they have to serve you lunch! Sorry about the Slavery! And we have the legal ability to do this, because Commerce Clause.

yamaha wrote:

Cone_Junkie wrote: I find it entertaining to see a discussion board that is (probably) comprised of 90% white, heterosexual males discuss how civil rights laws are infringing on their personal freedoms. Please go on...

Quoted For Evidence: I'm still not quite sure how you have survived the patios with inflamatory posts like these..... Back on topic, as I said before, its the property owners right to deny anyone service/request that anyone leave their property for pretty much any reason. Posted signs and or a consistant "none of this type" action could get you in hot water. Say for example you own a fancy dinner establishment and someone came in being discourteous, disruptive, and just happened to differ in skin tone to you......should you cower in fear of a racism lawsuit(any race), or should you actually judge said person by their character and kick them out? I know I would.....doesn't matter your skin tone, nor does it matter your background. Throw the race card around me and I will most likely call you a racist. End of story.

Let me elaborate since this turned in to the white guilt thread. All these "problems" that are being complained about on here about how civil rights laws are intruding on their life are absolutely berkeleying trivial compared to the atrocities that these laws were designed to protect against.

I have called NO ONE racist or implied it. We just need to remember why these laws were created in the first place and accept we would revert decades of progress if these laws were repealed. Just because you (or we) are not racist and don't need a law forbidding us from disgusting behavior does not mean that as a country we are immune to this in present day.

A majority of people in the US, let alone in this thread, have never been on the losing end of these atrocities committed under the guise of personal freedoms in the past. So cry me a river on how tough your life is now.

Xceler8x wrote: It's starting to sound like you're mad because white folks can't discriminate in whatever way they want anymore. I must be missing something...

I'm mad because any folk can't discriminate the way they want to, regarding their own businesses, services, and properties.

I think if the First Amendment guarantees people the right to talk like shiny happy people (which the Supreme Court has defended thousands of times), then people should be guaranteed the right to act like shiny happy people on their own property and on their own time. People of ANY creed or color.

Like I said, I am all for equality of all kinds for everybody. But even though I think it is a crime that same-sex couples still can't get married in all 50 states, I don't think it's a crime that somebody who owns a reception hall refuses to host their receptions.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

In reply to Datsun1500:

That's one that has always got me, if you really want to eliminate racial tension, wouldn't the most straightforward method be to eliminate any legal distinction(be it positive or negative) between the two?