In mid-May, Portland police Officer James Crooker went to Southeast Portland on a patrol call. With a few minutes to spare, he decided to get a coffee.
So, he popped into the Red & Black cafe on Southeast 12th Avenue near Oak Street, bought a coffee and was heading out when a customer approached him, saying she appreciates the hard job that police officers do every day in Portland.
One of the co-owners of the cafe, John Langley, has another point of view. While the officer and customer were chatting, he walked up and asked Crooker to leave, saying he felt uncomfortable having a uniformed officer in the vegan cafe.
I'm calling out my own on this and it illustrates a point I was making in another thread on Rand Paul and his statements regarding The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the rights of private businesses not to serve patrons based on the owners' prejudices.
While the officer was not discriminated against for the color of his skin, but for the what his clothing represents, it's still discrimination.
Red & Black cafe shows Portland officer the door, won't sell him coffee again | OregonLive.com
There is a back story here. There have been several questionable police shootings in the last couple years in Portland and that's what the owner had in mind when this incident occurred. I call BS. There is little difference between discriminating over those incidents thereby coloring all police officers as dangerous, and discriminating because one's errant bigoted veiw of non-whites.
This exactly illustrates the point I was making in the other thread. If it's ok for a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race, then it's ok for the owner of the coffee shop to discriminate based on the officer's uniform. Yes, he could come back any other time, not in uniform, but why should be forced to do that in order to be served? (Yes, I realize he got the coffee before being asked to leave, but he is clearly not welcome to return in uniform.)
Being a policeman is not a race and it's not an apples to apples comparison, but it's offensive none-the-less. Discrimination always is.
While the officer was not discriminated against for the color of his skin, but for the what his clothing represents, it's still discrimination.
If it's ok for a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race, then it's ok for the owner of the coffee shop to discriminate based on the officer's uniform.
Based on my own personal experiences with police, you're either a victim, a witness or a suspect, and that generally police contacts are negative experiences. It's best to avoid someone that has the power to arrest you whenever they want. With that being said, this was probably a dumb thing to do, but not that big of a deal and I have absolutely no idea why this article was written about it or why we're talking about it on an international discussion forum.
Discrimination isn't always bad, so I don't see this as an argument, either.
I believe a business owner can refuse service to whomever he pleases, for whatever reason he pleases, under freedom of association.
Having said that, the officer and his friends are free to picket the place and tell people why, and the community is free to boycott the business in disgust at the owner's attitude and practices.
Yes, I know SCOTUS doesn't agree with me. I think the free-association approach would work just as well in most cases, however. I can't prove it, because we haven't tried it in modern times. I think public opinion would keep the vast majority of businesses from engaging in discriminatory practices.
Having said THAT, I think the owner is an idiot, but being an idiot is his right as a free American.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Based on my own personal experiences with police, you're either a victim, a witness or a suspect, and that generally police contacts are negative experiences. It's best to avoid someone that has the power to arrest you whenever they want. With that being said, this was probably a dumb thing to do, but not that big of a deal and I have absolutely no idea why this article was written about it or why we're talking about it on an international discussion forum.
Discrimination isn't always bad, so I don't see this as an argument, either.
Indeed, if a business can discriminate along race, then they can also discriminate upon profession. That's that. And it's within the rights of the business owner to do so. I think it's high time people start learning that their isn't a right against being offended. You'll find a great many offensive things in this world. I find it offensive that many people can't do simple math or use their brains; but nothing I can do about it. And that's the attitude that needs to be adopted. So long as the rights of the individual are not infringed upon, we have to learn to deal with it. Even if its stuff we don't like or condone ourselves. That's one of the consequences of freedom.
Seriously? :shock:
This is a self solving problem...how quickly do you think the police will respond to any emergency calls from that place?
You can now officially rob that cafe all day, every day, without any chance that the cops will intervene.
"Seriously?" isn't a response. What I said is absolutely true. Minors are discriminated against in that they can't drink alcohol, for example. I don't really have much of a problem with discriminating against police, but comparing it to racism is absolutely stupid.
A shotgun solves that problem really quick
Interesting. Are 12 year olds victims of discrimination because they are not allowed to drive cars...??
.
Cole said:Interesting. Are 12 year olds victims of discrimination because they are not allowed to drive cars...??
webrockk said:"Discrimination"...the buzz word that elicits a Pavlovian response from the tortured, guilt riddled psyches of lefties everywhere.....everyone is oppressed. Everyone is a victim.
Yes, of course they are. Discrimination means treating a group differently based on some aspect of that group. So yes, 12 year olds certainly are discriminated against regarding driving restrictions. That is called age discrimination.
You need to learn to read; my entire point was that discrimination isn't always a bad thing.
An impotent lefty rabble rouser simply hoisting his flag. To use a common lefty tactic....boycott Red and Black cafe.
I see nothing wrong with refusing service to the street gangs of the government. The pigs can go find another place to waste tax payer dollars on.
webrockk said:You need to choose your words more carefully. "Discrimination" is not a very accurate or truthful depiction of a minors prohibition from alcohol....
It's a public space, open to the public. If they want to run a private coffee shop and only serve, dreadlocked, Birkenstock wearing hippies, fine and dandy but that isn't the case. .
Further, this country, I thought stood for something greater.
Our nation was founded on that proposition. It doesn't say that property owners are more equal and have rights above the rest of us.
"Anarchy now!!"
libertarians make me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Please further explain the feasibility of your lawless society.
I see nothing wrong with refusing service to the street gangs of the government. The pigs can go find another place to waste tax payer dollars on.
I'm calling out my own on this and it illustrates a point I was making in another thread on Rand Paul and his statements regarding The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the rights of private businesses not to serve patrons based on the owners' prejudices.
While the officer was not discriminated against for the color of his skin, but for the what his clothing represents, it's still discrimination.
Red & Black cafe shows Portland officer the door, won't sell him coffee again | OregonLive.com
There is a back story here. There have been several questionable police shootings in the last couple years in Portland and that's what the owner had in mind when this incident occurred. I call BS. There is little difference between discriminating over those incidents thereby coloring all police officers as dangerous, and discriminating because one's errant bigoted veiw of non-whites.
This exactly illustrates the point I was making in the other thread. If it's ok for a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race, then it's ok for the owner of the coffee shop to discriminate based on the officer's uniform. Yes, he could come back any other time, not in uniform, but why should be forced to do that in order to be served? (Yes, I realize he got the coffee before being asked to leave, but he is clearly not welcome to return in uniform.)
Being a policeman is not a race and it's not an apples to apples comparison, but it's offensive none-the-less. Discrimination always is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?