Private property / public establishments

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?

We've been here much longer than that (some of Dad's side as early as the late 1600's). BUT.... we've been poor Northern farmers and woodsmen for generations after coming to the new world and as far as our records go back (I believe they've traced to the mid 1700's) none of my extended families had slaves. Too berkeleying poor. One set were indentured servants in PA in the early 1800's (mom's side).

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Cone_Junkie: That's the new version of bringing up Hitler to end a thread... I'll play, how come black pride is protected, but white pride is racist?

Because, KKK. Duh. You're not very good at this.

EDIT: I can't be racist (or sexist, or classist or [insert-ist here]) because I hate everyone equally. All Y'all are stupidheads.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Cone_Junkie: That's the new version of bringing up Hitler to end a thread... I'll play, how come black pride is protected, but white pride is racist?

The short answer is, the "expression" of black pride didn't result in cross-burnings, fire-bombings or lynchings of American citizens because of their race or nationality, and the "expression" of white pride by certain organizations did result in those things. This is actually a sort of constructive thread, as long as it stays on topic. Having said that, in before the lock..

Edit: Basically, what Bobzilla said..

The original question was: can a business tell someone to leave the premises? The answer: yes but it better not be for a 'reason' connected to race, religion etc. So said business better be ready to defend its reasons.

And for the record, if I were to go somewhere complaining I wasn't served because I am white (and nerdy) then I better be prepared to get laughed at and out of the office. So yes there most definitely is an acceptable racism against whites out there. I can't change it so I just accept it and keep on with my life, I got bigger fish to fry.

I don't think it can be put any simpler than that.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Cone_Junkie: That's the new version of bringing up Hitler to end a thread... I'll play, how come black pride is protected, but white pride is racist?

Oktoberfest, FinnFest, St. Patricks day, etc. You are allowed to celebrate your heritage.

Curmudgeon wrote: The original question was: can a business tell someone to leave the premises? The answer: yes but it better not be for a 'reason' connected to race, religion etc. So said business better be ready to defend its reasons. And for the record, if I were to go somewhere complaining I wasn't served because I am white (and nerdy) then I better be prepared to get laughed at and out of the office. So yes there most definitely is an acceptable racism against whites out there. I can't change it so I just accept it and keep on with my life, I got bigger fish to fry. I don't think it can be put any simpler than that.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.

Health code reason.

In reply to Datsun1500:

You asked for groups that celebrate who they are other than black pride, and I gave some examples. You also asked why you are "paying" when slavery ended in 1865, and I answered that, too.

ok, whatever you say.....

Go ahead and celebrate whatever you want to be. Knock yourself out. Pretend that there isn't discrimination in society, because while straight males somehow can't be proud.... Even when they do, and can- you can joint that crazy church that protests against pretty much everyone that isn't them (and thus sinning)- they talk, they group together, and none of them go to jail for talking. You can be one of them.

In reply to Datsun1500:

They can and do......to be honest, a few things that were passed to prevent discrimination actually have been turned into an "unfair advantage" in the time since.

Either way, the answer to this thread is still Yes with exceptions.

Eventually we are going to have to get to a point where all distinction of difference will have to be removed from law. Otherwise we are perpetuating the myth that those things make people different, and someone will always be at a legislated disadvantage.

The real question is whether we are there yet or not. Recent events in MO would suggest not, though I think other parts of the country may be there and that is the best reason for the federal government to start backing out.

As to the original question posed in this thread, I am comforted by the fact that Stupid isn't a protected class yet because were I a store owner or service provider I can still refuse service to anyone based on that.

wbjones wrote: … but going back to what you're advocating would totally destroy the gains that have been made over the last 50 yrs.

Sure, if by "gains" you mean the rise of the authoritarian state. I don't really consider it a gain to force a business owner at the point of a gun to do something they don't want to do. It's really not different than what we had before, it's only the oppressor has changed from the shopkeeper to the government. I'm not advocating Jim Crow type laws - they needed to be repealed, but we didn't have to replace it with something that gives the government the power to meddle in contracts between individuals and to take away the freedom to do what one wanted to do when it comes to their property and business.

T.J. wrote:

wbjones wrote: … but going back to what you're advocating would totally destroy the gains that have been made over the last 50 yrs.

Sure, if by "gains" you mean the rise of the authoritarian state. I don't really consider it a gain to force a business owner at the point of a gun to do something they don't want to do. It's really not different than what we had before, it's only the oppressor has changed from the shopkeeper to the government. I'm not advocating Jim Crow type laws - they needed to be repealed, but we didn't have to replace it with something that gives the government the power to meddle in contracts between individuals and to take away the freedom to do what one wanted to do when it comes to their property and business.

Are you sure allowing private establishments to set out rules indistinguishable from Jim Crow laws is a fair price for the libertarian warm n' fuzzies? If so, I'll just have to disagree. Again, you might want to look into what led to the creation of these laws in the first place.

That's getting a little over the top. Anybody who thinks we would return to the days of Jim Crow needs a reality check.

It still comes down to this, which I will repeat yet again: a business owner has the right to eject anyone harmful to his/her business but it comes down to protecting themselves against false charges of racism or sexism, meaning thorough documentation and camera shots, eyewitnesses, etc because I ga-ron-tee you some jerkoff will try to twist it to their advantage, looking for a quick payout. That is the world we live in.

The statute of limitations has expired on this, so I can recount a personal tale: we once had a ~30 year old black girl slip and fall on wet concrete epoxy in our service drive. Of course we all jumped up, went to her aid, asked if she were OK, got the GM involved, he offered to call her an ambulance etc. We all treated her with the greatest respect. She said she was OK, didn't need a ride, etc.

Two weeks later we get a letter from an attorney; she was suing the dealership but get this, not over injuries. In this letter she stated that we gathered around and laughed at her, she also claimed that she heard someone say 'stupid ni***r can't even walk'. I think she was paid some token amount without admitting guilt because it just wasn't worth going to court. THAT is the reality of today's business world, folks; get used to it.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Yea, thank the bloodthirsty lawyers for that one.....

I'm not advocating Jim Crow type laws - they needed to be repealed, but we didn't have to replace it with something that gives the government the power to meddle in contracts between individuals and to take away the freedom to do what one wanted to do when it comes to their property and business.

Jim Crow laws are exactly why we have a meddling govt.

Jim Crow laws were created by meddling governments. The Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger, even more meddling government. The correct antidote to bad government is not more bad government.

T.J. wrote: Jim Crow laws were created by meddling governments. The Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger, even more meddling government. The correct antidote to bad government is not more bad government.

Curmudgeon wrote: That's getting a little over the top. Anybody who thinks we would return to the days of Jim Crow needs a reality check.

Really? Because I think that the fight against the oppression of "the other" requires constant vigilance. I think it would be really easy for this country to slide back into the equivalent of Jim Crow if everyone on one side decided the fight was won and moved on and ignored new issues. It might not be against black people, it might be against - surprise! - homosexuals, or muslims, or any number of "other" groups.

Just because we're in a good place now in some respects doesn't mean we don't have to keep vigilant against decline and ending up in an oppressive state later.

T.J. wrote: Jim Crow laws were created by meddling governments. The Civil Rights Act was enacted by a larger, even more meddling government. The correct antidote to bad government is not more bad government.

And up is down, and sheep should sleep with wolves, and battery acid is better for your infant than formula!

Duke wrote:

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.

I'm not sure why the ability to operate a business and sell things (or not) to people counts as speech. Does it? I don't agree with that idea. The courts might, but I don't know.

Anyway, not all speech is protected, so there's that.

dculberson wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: That's getting a little over the top. Anybody who thinks we would return to the days of Jim Crow needs a reality check.

Really? Because I think that the fight against the oppression of "the other" requires constant vigilance. I think it would be really easy for this country to slide back into the equivalent of Jim Crow if everyone on one side decided the fight was won and moved on and ignored new issues. It might not be against black people, it might be against - surprise! - homosexuals, or muslims, or any number of "other" groups. Just because we're in a good place now in some respects doesn't mean we don't have to keep vigilant against decline and ending up in an oppressive state later.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Things need to get better but compare things to just ten or fifteen years ago. It's been a seismic shift in societal attitudes that has nothing to do with legislating the E36 M3 out of people.

T.J. wrote: . I'm not advocating Jim Crow type laws - they needed to be repealed, but we didn't have to replace it with something that gives the government the power to meddle in contracts between individuals and to take away the freedom to do what one wanted to do when it comes to their property and business.

if not for those laws then we'd just have the same Jim Crowe laws in effect … just without the power of the law behind them … nothing would ever change

dculberson wrote:

Duke wrote:

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.

I'm not sure why the ability to operate a business and sell things (or not) to people counts as speech. Does it? I don't agree with that idea. The courts might, but I don't know. Anyway, not all speech is protected, so there's that.

This post was almost a dissertation on race relations and government intervention in the last century, but to avoid TL/DR i'll just break it down into simple statements.

1. Discrimination against people because of their skin color or where they are from or who they date is wrong and is now against law.
2. People can and do still act like shiny happy people, regardless of where they are. You can't legislate morality but you can legislate behavior. A persons right to be a s*it towards another person ends where another persons rights begin.
3. Jim Crow was and is racial animus codified. It wasn't meddling government that started Jim Crow, it was people who used government to advance their political and social views. Unfortunately, outside of armed revolution the only way to change "bad" law is by enacting "good" law.

Anyway, I don't see the government telling people how to conduct their business. What I do see is government regulating behavior to protect people who have been historically oppressed. If this oppression had not been made statute (Jim Crow laws) then the protective laws would not have been necessary. Oh well, this post is still too damn long..

Curmudgeon wrote: Then you haven't been paying attention. Things need to get better but compare things to just ten or fifteen years ago. It's been a seismic shift in societal attitudes that has nothing to do with legislating the E36 M3 out of people.

I think those go hand in hand - societal attitudes and the laws that society enact. We are not divorced from our government.

06HHR wrote: 3. Jim Crow was and is racial animus codified. It wasn't meddling government that started Jim Crow, it was people who used government to advance their political and social views.

06HHR wrote: If this oppression had not been made statute (Jim Crow laws) then the protective laws would not have been necessary.

Wait what? Doesn't the second statement conflict with the first?