Still a shadow of legally enforced segregation that existed in the south.  Most of the Freedom Riders grew up in the north, and were told to expect the kind of treatment that they have heard of, but never experienced personally, because they grew up in a northern state.  There is a huge difference between some racist who refuses to ride on the same bus with you, and the racist with a badge who releases the trained attack dog on you for your belief that you get to ride on the bus regardless of someone else's opinion.  Check your history books, black men in the south risked getting beaten or killed for looking a white woman in the eyes.  For that matter, they risked getting killed for sport in some areas for the act of being black.  That's real racism, and it was often condoned, if not outright committed by, the elected and appointed representatives of law and order.  If I was so inclined, I could find dozens of such cases in the old south prior to 1960 that went unpunished.  I can probably find a dozen such cases in the north also, but the perpetrators were normally prosecuted.  No one just stopped being racist because of the law being changed, or the Civil Rights Act being passed.  It took a generation of education, at least, to alter the culture; but only the hard racists in the deep south were forced into it, the Civil Rights Act made little difference to the culture of the northern states and western states, which is one reason that it passed so easily.

Greyhound bus lines were not segregated except in the states that required it as a matter of state law.

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  It's offensive to even compare the two.  Sure, there were racists everywhere, and many of them were attracted to positions of power, particularly in the police forces, and thus crap happens.  But it wasn't officially condoned as a matter of state law north of the mason-dixon line.  For that matter, the kind of person that would pass judgements upon another human being's character, value or criminal intents based primarily upon a group identity beyond their own control is still the same kind of person that is attracted to a police career.  That much is true everywhere and always.  Tribalism cannot be stamped out of the human condition by the simple act of passing a law that prohibits it, and it's the height of arrogance (or irrationality) to believe that it could.

That's called the 'time preference' of money, and is uniquely Austrian.

Every single example of segregation that you have just presented were universally present in southern states in the 60's because of state segregation & 'Jim Crow' laws that compelled private business owners to do so.  The "Freedom Rides" events are the prime example of this.  The cross country bus companies couldn't have cared less if there were blacks on the same bus as whites, but couldn't allow this to occur in certain states because of the law.  The same was true with the segregated bus stations, maintaining multiple facilities was more expensive than intergration, the free market most certianly would have fixed this one in the South if left to it's own devices, because that is exactly what happened everywhere else.

You might be right about that, I wasn't trying address whether a free market is capable of eliminating racism or not in this thread.  And neither was RP in respect to the Civil Rights Act.  His point, and mine, is that any such selective enforcement of a positive right by any level of government will lead to unintended consequences.  Also, the free market pretty much suppressed racism in Britain, although that wasn't an absolute job either.  The change in the laws came after the changes in the public viewpoint, and I believe that is how it always happens.  The Civil Rights Act was only possible after the paradigm shift among the electorate, leading to many of the effective clauses in such laws to be overreach for that reason alone.

subscription to any thread is tied to one's own posting history.  you have the power to delete your own posts, therefore you have the power to unsubscribe.

You don't have to prove it.  A lawyer would simply have to be able to convince a civil jury that it's likely.  It's not criminal to through someone out for any reason, but such a lawsuit has open ended monetary risks.  No buisness owner should face such open ended civil suit risks for exercising their own right to do business with whomever they please, and not do buisness with whomever they please. 

He could also post a sign on his door requiring that all who enter wearing a tie will have it cut off and nailed to the wall before being seated, but that isn't a legally enforcible notice.  It only has authority upon those that recongnize that it has any such authority.

And no, I didn't just make that one up.  The cut tie scenario actually happened.

No, it is not, in fact, legal for a Jewish owner of a restaurant to refuse to serve a skinhead, with or without a nazi swastika tattooed on the back of his head, if that said skinhead had not (yet) committed a known criminal offense against the owner, other patrons, or establishment and he has the funds to pay for the meal.  The reality is that the clause of the Civil Rights Act that RP objected to at the time, and still does, made this (admittedly unlikely) scenario a matter of civil rights.  It granted the skinhead a right that does not exist, namely to be served equally by one who does not wish to engage in business.  This is one example of the inevitiable, yet unintended, consequences of federal laws such as this one; that charge the federal government with the task of selective enforcement of positive rights.  And yes, this is selective enforcement, because the right of the Jewish owner to not engage in business with someone he doesn't wish to is borderline slavery.  This isn't a thread about the moral aspects of this scenario, for the moral aspects are obvious enough to anyone who isn't a skinhead.  And the scenario remains rare, because skinheads (like most people) prefer to self-segregate, and thus wouldn't likely enter into such an establishment without a hidden motive, also likely malicious.  Because of this, if a Jewish owner refused to serve a skinhead, he would more than likely get away with it, but the skinhead could then sue under the Civil Rights Act and likely win.

Spell it out for me, then.

And that is the point.  According to the Civil Rights Act, it's not up to him to decide.  He must serve anyone who enters into his 'public' establishment who has the money to pay, without regard to his race or appearances (excepting a lack of shoes and shirt).

I'm trying to highlight the details.  RP was opposed to the singular clause in the Civil Rights Act that would force this Jewish shop owner to serve a person who hates his family, simply because the hater could (correctly) claim that it was racial discrimination at his expense.  It's not like a neo-nazi in NYC can't find another place to get a meal within two blocks, such shops are everywhere.  It may not have been a practical objection at the time, but RP was right that it would eventually become an issue.  Any shop owner that put up a sign that prohibited black people from entering that store would be on the news within a day, in the modern era, and be under a boycott that would (rightously) destroy his business within a week.  No federal force required.  RP's analysis of the situation is historicly correct, the reason that Jim Crow laws persisted for 100 years after the end of the civil war was due to racism among government agents.

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

Of course something will happen.  Something happens everyday.  Most just isn't dramatic or newsworthy.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57298.0

I've started another thread related to this one.  Specificly for FlipPro to address a concern that I have with the Civil Rights Act.

As a spinoff of the "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for love" thread, I'm asking this question...

Should a Jewish owner of an eatery in NYC be forced by governments to serve a hungry neo-nazi skinhead, if he has the money?

How say you FlipPro?

You're getting your libertarians confused.  Ron Paul has openly stated, recently, that "States don't really have rights, the people who live there do."

A house divided can not pass new laws.

There is one thing that Ron Paul could do as president that congress cannot prevent.  He can recall the armed forces.

For that matter, he could make an example out of congress for passing that terrible Defense Authorization Act that defines the entire planet as a battlefield.  By being the first person to use that clause to have those who voted for it arrested for violations of their oath of office.  I can't see him doing any such thing, however.

I've not the skills to impliment this, and would just love to have it.

First, some background.  I have an android smartphone, and a budget type service with Virgin Mobile.  Data is 'unlimited', but it's throttled with a top end limit of about 150Kbps.  I also have an old boombox at work that I have a cassette adapter that lets me use the smartphone as an input.  I've used it to listen to FTL via the low bandwidth shoutcast stream, but at 150Kbps it chokes on the kind of streams from sky1.com and the like.  What I want is a website with a selection of shoutcast feeds from a 'jukebox' that permits me to sent it a small amount of bitcoin, and then choose from a selection of songs from with the genre the channel represents.  For example, the website might ask for supporter donations for randomly chosen music, but take about .05BTC and let the donator choose the next several songs before reverting back to a randomly chosen feed.  It could also have some ads while in random mode, in part, to remind connected listeners that they could direct the programming.  A low bandwidth shoutcast file, of about 64Kbps or so, is needed for me, however.