DO I support racism?[W:433]

[sangha]

I would agree that it would do harm to restrict public services, for instance electricity or water, however a private business should be allowed to choose who they do business with.

It depends on what the term "private business" means. I suspect that when you use the term, you are including a lot of businesses that are properly known as "public accommodations"

Please note the use of the word "public", not "private"

 

[Removable Mind]

My apologies. I thought I was posting my opinion on the question that was asked, didnt realize I should only post the way things currently are and nothing more. If we are only going to discuss the laws that currently are I suppose these conversations are going to be very short.

Ohhhhh, no, no, no....you don't owe me any apology. You are fundamentally correct about what you stated.

There are people who, in fact, would support a constitutional amendment, which would allow a business owner to refuse to provide their services or goods based on race. They genuinely believe that as it stands today, because of current civil rights laws, they are being denied rights to manage their property, whether it be deemed as private or public. They believe that they should have unfettered control over their businesses without government interference whatsoever as to whom they serve or don't serve.

So I guess if a person would support such a constitutional amendment...could well be supporting a business owner's right to be a bigot or a racist or both.

And some are saying that they don't personally believe in racism or bigotry. However, they will defend the rights of those who do believe in racism to be racists.

That's it in a nutshell.

Personally I don't know how it can be both ways.

I personally won't defend the rights of those who believe that they should be legally able to discriminate on the basis of race (or other known forms of discrimination). But, that's just me.

I think Chick Fil A owners are bigots. I think that Hobby Lobby are religious radicals who are sexist. So if I patron their businesses...then I would have to say that I'm supporting their bigotry and religious exploitation of women.

 

[Henrin]

It depends on what the term "private business" means. I suspect that when you use the term, you are including a lot of businesses that are properly known as "public accommodations"

Please note the use of the word "public", not "private"

Please note that property in question is private property and thus the business is a private business.

 

[Henrin]

Re: DO I support racism?

The 1st and 13th amendment do not guarantee a right to commercial segregation and bigotry. Once again, quote it if you claim otherwise. You assert a right that does not exist - and never has.

When the government forces people to associate with others they are in violation of the right to association, and when they force people to provide others their labor, they are in violation of the 13th amendment.

 

[Henrin]

Re: DO I support racism?

Everything you just mentioned is regulated by government, though very limited in terms of association.


Child labor laws and a requirement to have a license before being a doctor or lawyer or plumber or doing hair. Property is a big word you didn't specify but, in fact, a 13 year old can not buy liquor or a gun (personal property) and limited to who can buy and operate certain businesses - ranging from casinos to gun shops. There can be guilt by association both civility and criminally in terms of conspiracy laws. People are greatly limited in terms of usage of personal (possessions) and real (land) property. The list is almost endless.

Yes, we could talk all day of all the unjust laws on the books. I think it's pretty strange that we declare children don't have the right to work or buy certain things, and I think it's even stranger that conspiracy is a crime. I also think it's odd how the government assumes the role of making sure people are qualified for a job when the market does that just fine.

At the local, county, state and federal level there are hundreds of thousands of laws regulations and restriction "labor and property" rights. "Commerce" isn't association. It is commerce. What is NOTABLE is that the ONE rule you pick out of hundreds of thousands is your declaring you have a right to "associate" only with white people when you eat out if you can find a white- only restaurant - and you want someone to have the right to open that restaurant building a business specifically to cater to and profit from racism.

When I hire someone I'm agreeing to associate with them. If I'm doing commerce with someone I'm agreeing to allow them to either use and or acquire my property. If I don't consent to that transaction then the transaction was not voluntary. If I'm coerced to give up my property or allow others to use my property then my property rights were violated. If I'm forced to take part in any transaction then I'm forced into labor.

Many, many small towns only have 1 gas station, 1 small grocery store, and 1 small hardware store - and often then to have a very high percentage of one "race" or another. In your model of "freedom" - the majority would literally starve people who aren't their race out of town. The freedom to run people out of town due to their race, ethnicity or religion. Could run off disabled people that way too. Or pull out the primary voting records and run off all Democrats. Can't buy gas, can't buy propane, can't buy food, can't eat at a restaurant, can't buy lumber...

The failure to commence in commerce with someone does not make someones condition worse, but simply does not take any actions to better their condition or to provide them with what they need or want. In fact, the failure to commence in commerce with someone never worses the condition of anyone, but simply doesn't help any of the possible parties to better their condition by trade.

 

[Boo Radley]

I would agree that it would do harm to restrict public services, for instance electricity or water, however a private business should be allowed to choose who they do business with. At least at a legal level. Now if Billy's Burgers declares they will no longer serve black people or hispanics they will lose business. Not only from that race but many others who disagree with their practice. Not to mention the hoards of protesters who will impede their business. It likely wouldn't last. But the business owner should be able to choose and refuse their customers. Noone should be forced to do business with anyone. Society can fix this with consumer choices on these things. Forcing Billy to serve everyone keeps Billy open, possibly making tons of money, that his racist ass is probably using to fund all kinds of racist agendas which is then not really helping anyone.

Having lived in such areas, I believe there are areas of the country that would largely block out minorities if allowed to by law. Even with the law, there are still places that systematicaly restrict access to minorities. And it's not forced to do business. No one has to open any business. But if you CHOOSE to do business, you must do so legally.

 

[Kreton]

It depends on what the term "private business" means. I suspect that when you use the term, you are including a lot of businesses that are properly known as "public accommodations"

Please note the use of the word "public", not "private"

Well, and some others may disagree, but when I say private I mean a sole proprietorship or partnership.

 

[USViking]

Re: DO I support racism?

Of course! I mean, I advocate for upholding the First Amendment,

The joke is on you.

The issue has been fully adjudicated, the "must serve" position has been found to be 1st Amendment compliant, and thus the 1st Amendment is now being upheld. How could you miss that? You also missed the part about OP asking for inference to be taken from support of a new amendment overriding part of the 1st Amendment ("Overriding" being the exact opposite of "upholding").

Aside from its fully established legality the preeminent social good of "must serve" is blindingly obvious. My premise is that anyone who supports such a radical departure away from 1st Amendment rights, and the social good upheld by those rights, is likely to be at least in part motivated by racism.

which automatically means I am an "asshole" and I automatically agree with Fred Phelps that "God Hates Fags," despite the fact that I'm an atheist.

Sure! That makes sense. :doh

Your analogy fails because Phelps's activity has also been found 1st Amendment compliant, a ruling I take it you agree with.

Now, suppose the justices had ruled against Phelps (as I think they should have- he had a vast number of public venues other than funerals available to pollute with his toxin), and suppose you then advocated a new amendment explicitly permitting homophobic demonstration at funerals. I would apply the same reasoning and accept as a premise that your position was at least partially motivated by homophobia.

 

[Henrin]

Re: DO I support racism?

The joke is on you.

The issue has been fully adjudicated, the "must serve" position has been found to be 1st Amendment compliant, and thus the 1st Amendment is now being upheld. How could you miss that? You also missed the part about OP asking for inference to be taken from support of a new amendment overriding part of the 1st Amendment ("Overriding" being the exact opposite of "upholding").

Go ahead and support the argument that forcing people into association is not violating their right to association. You know, the right that protects people from being forced into associations.

 

[Kreton]

Having lived in such areas, I believe there are areas of the country that would largely block out minorities if allowed to by law. Even with the law, there are still places that systematicaly restrict access to minorities. And it's not forced to do business. No one has to open any business. But if you CHOOSE to do business, you must do so legally.

I doubt there are any places in this country where businesses would largely block out anyone. Virtually every area of this country is run by large businesses who put profits above all else. And they create their own policies.

To say to do business you must do so legally is really not relevant to the conversation. Laws are wrong a lot of the time. Like I told the last guy, if your intent is to simply state the law then what is there to discuss? Feel free to assume the government always gets it right. If your intent is to simply state the law you should probably avoid conversations with me. I am stating my opinion and willing to discuss that opinion.

 

[joko104]

Re: DO I support racism?

RD didn't start this thread

I did

My apology to you and him.

 

[joko104]

I doubt there are any places in this country where businesses would largely block out anyone. Virtually every area of this country is run by large businesses who put profits above all else. And they create their own policies.

To say to do business you must do so legally is really not relevant to the conversation. Laws are wrong a lot of the time. Like I told the last guy, if your intent is to simply state the law then what is there to discuss? Feel free to assume the government always gets it right. If your intent is to simply state the law you should probably avoid conversations with me. I am stating my opinion and willing to discuss that opinion.

This is not true in small towns and cities.

 

[joko104]

Re: DO I support racism?

Go ahead and support the argument that forcing people into association is not violating their right to association. You know, the right that protects people from being forced into associations.

Chanting a word doesn't make a point. Doing business with someone is not associating with someone.

 

[Kreton]

Ohhhhh, no, no, no....you don't owe me any apology. You are fundamentally correct about what you stated.

There are people who, in fact, would support a constitutional amendment, which would allow a business owner to refuse to provide their services or goods based on race. They genuinely believe that as it stands today, because of current civil rights laws, they are being denied rights to manage their property, whether it be deemed as private or public. They believe that they should have unfettered control over their businesses without government interference whatsoever as to whom they serve or don't serve.

So I guess if a person would support such a constitutional amendment...could well be supporting a business owner's right to be a bigot or a racist or both.

Yes I agree. And I don't think the government should have the power to regulate that. If I make a good or service, and I am a privately run business, I should be allowed to choose to provide my goods to whoever I choose. I also should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone.

It is really no different from a consumer. Should a consumer be forced to exchange goods with a vendor that they don't want to? Regardless of that persons reason for going to Vendor A rather than Vendor B. It is that persons choice. You said you think Chik Fil A is a run by a bigot. Would it be right to force you to eat there? Obviously that would be wrong. Just like you should have a choice whether or not to eat there, they should have a choice whether or not to serve you.

And some are saying that they don't personally believe in racism or bigotry. However, they will defend the rights of those who do believe in racism to be racists.

I do. To a certain extent. Should a person be allowed to dislike someone based on race, religion, sexuality, creed, ect. Yes. Should someone be allowed to choose not to affliate themselves with people based on those things. Yes. So long as you are not committing crimes against that person.

I think Chick Fil A owners are bigots. I think that Hobby Lobby are religious radicals who are sexist. So if I patron their businesses...then I would have to say that I'm supporting their bigotry and religious exploitation of women.

If you believe chick Fil A owner is a bigot (or anyone else) and you do business there, then yes you are supporting it. Businesses need patrons to survive and grow.

 

[Kreton]

This is not true in small towns and cities.

I believe it is. I am sure there may be a couple exceptions, but I'd say they would be extremely rare. Most small business in small towns are struggling. If someone shows up with money, they are going to take it. And if they don't someone else will. Very quickly.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: DO I support racism?

Yes, we could talk all day of all the unjust laws on the books. I think it's pretty strange that we declare children don't have the right to work or buy certain things, and I think it's even stranger that conspiracy is a crime. I also think it's odd how the government assumes the role of making sure people are qualified for a job when the market does that just fine.

When I hire someone I'm agreeing to associate with them. If I'm doing commerce with someone I'm agreeing to allow them to either use and or acquire my property. If I don't consent to that transaction then the transaction was not voluntary. If I'm coerced to give up my property or allow others to use my property then my property rights were violated. If I'm forced to take part in any transaction then I'm forced into labor.

The failure to commence in commerce with someone does not make someones condition worse, but simply does not take any actions to better their condition or to provide them with what they need or want. In fact, the failure to commence in commerce with someone never worses the condition of anyone, but simply doesn't help any of the possible parties to better their condition by trade.

Henrin, you were just born 155 years too soon.

So regarding your 3 paragraphs above. Could you post some fairly modern case law citations based on such incidents that support your perception on the constitutional interpretations, which you believe are being "unjustly" or "wrongfully" applied?

Obviously you're claiming that business owners are technically forced into involuntary servitude. So, which parts of "The Civil Rights Act of 1964" would you repeal? Or do you prefer that it be completely repealed? Or how would you make the 13th Amendment more clear and concise so that business owners aren't held to operate their business in a state of involuntary servitude?

 

[Removable Mind]

Yes I agree. And I don't think the government should have the power to regulate that. If I make a good or service, and I am a privately run business, I should be allowed to choose to provide my goods to whoever I choose. I also should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone.

It is really no different from a consumer. Should a consumer be forced to exchange goods with a vendor that they don't want to? Regardless of that persons reason for going to Vendor A rather than Vendor B. It is that persons choice. You said you think Chik Fil A is a run by a bigot. Would it be right to force you to eat there? Obviously that would be wrong. Just like you should have a choice whether or not to eat there, they should have a choice whether or not to serve you.



I do. To a certain extent. Should a person be allowed to dislike someone based on race, religion, sexuality, creed, ect. Yes. Should someone be allowed to choose not to affliate themselves with people based on those things. Yes. So long as you are not committing crimes against that person.



If you believe chick Fil A owner is a bigot (or anyone else) and you do business there, then yes you are supporting it. Businesses need patrons to survive and grow.

Well, then we need a time machine to roll back the involuntary servitude imposed on business since the Thirteenth Amendment was written ...and The Civil Rights Act..along with any other laws that in anyway force businesses to "associate" with their customer base that they deem not worthy of their products and/or services.

In fact, we might be better serving our nations needs by eliminating about 2/3 of the Constitution...and government. Yes? No?

I don't quite see the perfect world that would evolve from an all out, systematic right to refuse services and products based on an owners dislike of others based on race, religion, etc.

 

[Kreton]

Well, then we need a time machine to roll back the involuntary servitude imposed on business since the Thirteenth Amendment was written ...and The Civil Rights Act..along with any other laws that in anyway force businesses to "associate" with their customer base that they deem not worthy of their products and/or services.

What time machine? What are you talking about? Are you not smart enough to know that it is possible to change current laws without time travel or are you just trolling me? If you are interested in discussing this, please try again without the idiocy or simply move on to discuss it with someone else.

 

[Henrin]

Re: DO I support racism?

Chanting a word doesn't make a point. Doing business with someone is not associating with someone.

When I mention association I'm talking about title VII of the civil rights act that prohibits employment discrimination.

 

[AGENT J]

im just glad the majority of people actually care about their rights and the rights of others. While this majority opinion is just a bonus because its not needed to protect the equal rights of us. Civil rights/equal rights/anti-discrimination laws does this for us and im glad the majority of people that do care about their rights and their fellow american rights agree with them. Other fantasies, fallacies and philosophies are meaningless to rights and just entertainment.

 

[JayDubya]

Any part of CRA 1964 that dictates the hiring practices of a private business or dictate who a private business must give custom to exceeds congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution and therefore any such text is inherently unconstitutional. IIRC, this text was in title 2 of the bill.

 

[USViking]

Re: DO I support racism?

Go ahead and support the argument that forcing people into association is not violating their right to association. You know, the right that protects people from being forced into associations.

I disagree that business in general falls under the relevant definition of "association".

 

[AGENT J]

Any part of CRA 1964 that dictates the hiring practices of a private business or dictate who a private business must give custom to exceeds congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution and therefore any such text is inherently unconstitutional. IIRC, this text was in title 2 of the bill.

good thing it doesnt do any of that crap lol

 

[Removable Mind]

What time machine? What are you talking about? Are you not smart enough to know that it is possible to change current laws without time travel or are you just trolling me? If you are interested in discussing this, please try again without the idiocy or simply move on to discuss it with someone else.

There is no time machine. But it would be necessary to have one in order to recreate the fundamental concepts of what we call the Constitution. The changes would entirely reflect a truly libertarian concept of existence.

And I know that some believe that true freedom can only be achieved by having the right to create a business, which has zero restrictions on who it serves or doesn't serve. But our nation's already tried that. It didn't work.

Current laws aren't going to change that would allow business owners to select their customers based on race preferences (or other discriminating factors). Separate but equal won't be on the menu for any future constitutional changes in the near future.

 

[Lursa]

Re: DO I support racism?

When the government forces people to associate with others they are in violation of the right to association, and when they force people to provide others their labor, they are in violation of the 13th amendment.

You dont have to open a business that opens you up to associating with people you hate then. Do something else. No one forces you to have a business where you open the doors to the public.

Or, if you dont like Jews, open a pork store. Dont like blacks? Open a tanning salon. :roll: