- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Well it's a right of association thing. Store owners can throw out people for all kinds of stupid things without legal recourse.
Maybe it was necessary in the 1960s, but today I can't imagine a more than a few openly discriminating stores staying in business for long or being forced to recant due to public outrage.
I concur with John. It’s all about freedom of association. I do not go into your home and make the rules; if you do not like the look of me then you have every right to not allow me in your home. The same goes for a private business and of course public places would follow the equality path set by the state. I mean, does the state have the right to make you associate with people you do not want to associate with? Do we need a statue to tell us to associate with everyone? Of course not, and this extends to individuals, private homes and private businesses.
Many sections of the Civil Rights Act intrude on the rights of the citizen.
Period.
A man's "right" to have lodging does not supercede another man's right to control how his property is used.
If a man owns a hotel in Harlem and he doesn't want to rent rooms with jonquis, then it violates his right to control his own property if the Congress unlawfully intrudes and forces him to do otherwise.
No, you're wrong.
A man owning a single hotel in Harlem is not subject to "interstate" commerce law. His hotel isn't crossing state lines. It doesn't matter what his clients are doing.
The man owning a Chinese restaurant doesn't have to serve an brothers if he doesn't like them and doesn't want to. Again, all his commerce is local, and subject to state laws that do not violate his Constitutional rights.
A chain of hotels is not engaged in interstate commerce. Not very many hotels cross state lines. Each and every one serves a clientele currently in a particular state.
That is the incorrect republican answer. In most states, it's illegal to post a sign that says anything to the effect of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." John Stossel's suggestion is disgraceful and quite suggestive of a desire to allow discrimination.
He's just another dispicable idiot who needs to be removed.
Then most states are violating one of the most basic freedoms a man has, the freedom to not associate with those he does not like.
No, for every businessman that refuses service to another, there's a business opportunity waiting to be exploited by others. No need for the government to interfere in that aspect of private commerce at all.
The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.
I suggest you go back and read your history about segragation. The law is thier to keep big business criminals in check.
I suggest you stop pretending knowledge that doesn't exist.
If the law was intended to keep "big business" in check, it wouldn't apply to the family run restaurant in Nashville.
The law was intended to expand federal power into realms it was expressly forbidden to enter.
As I said, the CRA should not have been applied outside of the federal government itself.
Welcome to the Tenth Amendment.
Tow that republican line.
That is the incorrect republican answer.
In most states, it's illegal to post a sign that says anything to the effect of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
John Stossel's suggestion is disgraceful and quite suggestive of a desire to allow discrimination.
He's just another dispicable idiot who needs to be removed.
I totally agree with you. I think people who do that are nutz. Nobody would put a sign like that in their windows. But my instincts tell me that, given no consequence, some restaurants would indeed discriminate loud and clear. "I'm sorry, there's a 2-hour wait." Honestly, I could even see restaurants turning into private clubs...not that much of a stretch...membership fee waived for some; not for others. The prejudiced people I ran into in my business were more often than not in the 40's-50's and over. You could be rght that it's going of the way of the dinosaur, but I don't think it's there yet. Imagine! If it's like that in Maggie's world in Chicago, what must it be like in the south?
I cannot concur. I think the current method encourages the state (parent) and individual (child) society. You cannot force people to like each other, it must come from them.I prefer the method that currently exists.
I agree on why the rules were created but, the rules are not necessary. The state is not my father or mother who tells me who I have to hang out with or who I have to allow on my property. I am the judge of that. Just think how you feel between being forced to do something rather than come to your own conclusions? This is what the state has done; instead of allowing people to do things on their own pace, it has forced people and created more antagonism.The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.
I will acknowledge it. First; America has never had a free market thus, you cannot blame such process. Second; treating people as second class citizens because of their culture is not right but, laws will never change people minds. Third; it is different for a state to uphold equality when it comes to state functions and public areas and it is different for a state to force people to do what they do not want to do with themselves and their property. I do not have you let you into my house for any reason, period. Now, do you think it is right for the state to change that?Not one person who agrees with Stossel responded to what I said or even acknowledged it.
The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.
I will acknowledge it. First; America has never had a free market thus, you cannot blame such process. Second; treating people as second class citizens because of their culture is not right but, laws will never change people minds. Third; it is different for a state to uphold equality when it comes to state functions and public areas and it is different for a state to force people to do what they do not want to do with themselves and their property. I do not have you let you into my house for any reason, period. Now, do you think it is right for the state to change that?
I will try to make this clear. I hold that a private business (an individual’s property) can do pretty much anything it wants unless it violates someone else’s rights. If I am lied to by a private business, I can sue and have them arrested for fraud. If a private business steals from me, I can sue and have them arrested for thief. If a private business harms me or my children I can sue and have them arrested for assault. Now, not allowing someone into my property does not violate their rights because, they do not have a right to be on my property without my permission. It’s just like my house; I can say who comes into my house and who does not.No. But everybody agrees that the government should have some say over what private businesses can and cannot do.
So whites can't be victims of racism? That's funny because I've dealt with racism as an adolecent. I hate racism but the law is not the way to bring about change. Boycotts, education, communication are how to bring about social change.
I will try to make this clear. I hold that a private business (an individual's property) can do pretty much anything it wants unless it violates someone else's rights. If I am lied to by a private business, I can sue and have them arrested for fraud. If a private business steals from me, I can sue and have them arrested for thief. If a private business harms me or my children I can sue and have them arrested for assault. Now, not allowing someone into my property does not violate their rights because, they do not have a right to be on my property without my permission. It's just like my house; I can say who comes into my house and who does not.
I do not agree with racism nor do I practice racism but, I will not bend on individual liberty and private property rights.
I am an atheist and not white, Sir.
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?