Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead?

[MoonShadow]

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?

[1714482647]

1714482647

[1714482647]

1714482647

[1714482647]

1714482647

[JeffK]

yes? what are you trying to prove here, that FlipPro has double3 standards or something?

[JeffK]

"but seriously guys, REVERSE RACISM is a real problem, won't someone think of the oppressed white men who just want to keep those mischievous negroes out of their restaurants?"

[MoonShadow]

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.

[kokjo]

its up to the jewish guy! his food, he decides who he wants to sell it to, and to which price.

[casascius]

its up to the jewish guy! his food, he decides who he wants to sell it to, and to which price.

Or whether or not to s[p|h]it in it.

[kokjo]

its up to the jewish guy! his food, he decides who he wants to sell it to, and to which price.

Or whether or not to s[p|h]it in it.

no, not unless its a part of the recipe.

if i was the jewish guy, i would sell the nazi some food. and take his money.

[MoonShadow]

its up to the jewish guy! his food, he decides who he wants to sell it to, and to which price.

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).

[bb113]

Is there anyone here who disagrees with Ron Paul that Jim Crow laws were an example of state governments functioning outside the constitution?  Flippro?

[westkybitcoins]

its up to the jewish guy! his food, he decides who he wants to sell it to, and to which price.

Of course.

The power to force people to associate against their will is arbitrary, because the determination of when it is appropriate to do so is a completely separate affair. If you concede that someone has that power, then what's to stop them from exercising it when the criteria for "good associations" suddenly (or gradually) changes to something you don't like?

Bottom line: forcing peaceful adults to associate against their will is wrong.

[mizerydearia]

I agree that racial relations should be an issue handled by individual people and not in any way influenced or handled by any governmental, corporational, educational, orgizational or other collection of people and merely the reality of which through word of mouth and other spreading of informations (e.g. reddit) the actions of all things (including efforts towards racial and other discriminations) the people can decide for themselves on how to proceed.

Everything has varying values even in terms of racial discrimination.  The context of which the racial discrimination occurred and the longevity and other factors and characteristics of the single event of racial discrimination would determine the level of response and effort pursued by people that felt worth and value in responding and propagating suggestive information to others on responding as well.  And through freedom of choice the people can decide with whom to listen to and either participate or not.  Sometimes there is misinformation that is not clearly recognized, but it isn't necessary to rely on a kind of governmental, coporational, educational, orgizational or other collection of people community to tell us what is and is not misinformation and allow them to handle situations for us through fines, imprisonment or other penalties.  We can penalize such people, businesses, corporations, educational facilities, organizations, governments quite well as individual people.

Resources for which events such as occurrences of racial discrimination can be reliably documented and searched for as part of determining which business to do business with would be useful.  There are tons of sites that offer reviews and ratings, but none which offer precise and specific types of informations or evaluations especially based on specific things, such as a list of racial discriminations, or a count of how many instances and the rating of each instance, perhaps an average rating, etc.

I keep adding to this post and rambling on and on.  Perhaps I should continue to prepare it as a novel and see if I can find a publisher.

[Valalvax]

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

[westkybitcoins]

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one?

[FlipPro]

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one?

If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed?

Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously...

Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-.

[FlipPro]

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?

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

[nrd525]

Can a private business discriminate against people based on their political views?   

Private businesses do discriminate on many factors - for instance the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy.

So long as you aren't discriminating on race, veteran status, ethnicity, gender, (and in some places sexual orientation), age (in some cases), or disability - I think you are generally fine under the law.  So you can discriminate against short people (lots of amusement parks), people with blue eyes, etc.

[barbarousrelic]

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

[Sovereign]

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one?

If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed?

Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously...

Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-.

You're not arguing the principle, dumbass

[SgtSpike]

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

[Sovereign]

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

[SgtSpike]

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

Got it.  So right now, it is perfectly legal (in the US) for a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse service to a skinhead.  But the question is, is that legal right ethically right.

I say, yes.  It should absolutely be a person's choice to provide service only to those who they wish to provide service to, for whatever reason they like.  If someone want to refuse service to me because I have blue eyes, then I'll laugh at them, find a different place to do business with, and badmouth that first business as much as possible.  The free market can take care of unfair discriminators rather quickly and efficiently.

[P4man]

The free market can take care of unfair discriminators rather quickly and efficiently.

So its the free market that "ended" racial discrimination?

barbarousrelic hit the nail on the head. Let me requote him:

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

Refusing to serve a neo nazi is IMO fine. Refusing to serve someone because he is of German descend, is not. And no, free markets wont solve that, not when the people being discriminated represent a (small) minority.

[MoonShadow]

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

Got it.  So right now, it is perfectly legal (in the US) for a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse service to a skinhead.  But the question is, is that legal right ethically right.

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.

[SgtSpike]

The free market can take care of unfair discriminators rather quickly and efficiently.

So its the free market that "ended" racial discrimination?

barbarousrelic hit the nail on the head. Let me requote him:

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

Refusing to serve a neo nazi is IMO fine. Refusing to serve someone because he is of German descend, is not. And no, free markets wont solve that, not when the people being discriminated represent a (small) minority.

You make some good points. 

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

Got it.  So right now, it is perfectly legal (in the US) for a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse service to a skinhead.  But the question is, is that legal right ethically right.

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.

Thanks for the explanation.

[FlipPro]

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one?

If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed?

Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously...

Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-.

You're not arguing the principle, dumbass

I'm arguing the fact that this thread is dumb as shit,  and preatty unrealistic.

And you're just a dumb fucking troll. Go back to telling people they can't use BTC cause they don't support Ron Paul LOL!!!

[RandyFolds]

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?

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

So now you're saying that jews only care about money? You, sir, are a racist.

[FlipPro]

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?

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

So now you're saying that jews only care about money? You, sir, are a racist.

No OWNERS only care about money. And if they don't, then they're running a Shitty business.

[MoonShadow]

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

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.

[RandyFolds]

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?

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

So now you're saying that jews only care about money? You, sir, are a racist.

No OWNERS only care about money. And if they don't, then they're running a Shitty business.

And all jews are OWNERS? That, sir, is even more offensive.

[FlipPro]

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?

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

So now you're saying that jews only care about money? You, sir, are a racist.

No OWNERS only care about money. And if they don't, then they're running a Shitty business.

And all jews are OWNERS? That, sir, is even more offensive.

Let me whip out the troll mase.

[RandyFolds]

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?

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

So now you're saying that jews only care about money? You, sir, are a racist.

No OWNERS only care about money. And if they don't, then they're running a Shitty business.

And all jews are OWNERS? That, sir, is even more offensive.

Let me whip out the troll mase.

mace

[Sovereign]

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one?

If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed?

Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously...

Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-.

You're not arguing the principle, dumbass

I'm arguing the fact that this thread is dumb as shit,  and preatty unrealistic.

And you're just a dumb fucking troll. Go back to telling people they can't use BTC cause they don't support Ron Paul LOL!!!

You're the only troll here, pal. You don't understand what principle means. Please read MoonShadow's post

[nrd525]

Discrimination against skin heads is not based on race, and thus is allowed by the civil rights act.  It is based on hair and politics.

The store owner is discriminating against skin heads, not all white people.

[nrd525]

Now if you can prove that the discrimination is racially motivated, you'd have a case.  But you'd have to prove it.  Lots of white people are biased against skin heads and it isn't because of reverse racism.

[MoonShadow]

Now if you can prove that the discrimination is racially motivated, you'd have a case.  But you'd have to prove it.  Lots of white people are biased against skin heads and it isn't because of reverse racism.

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. 

[FredericBastiat]

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

[kokjo]

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

agree with you, BUT the law does not.

[SgtSpike]

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

I like your thoughts, and I kind of said the same thing earlier on, but the free market had centuries to cure various forms of racism, and never did cure some of them, as P4man pointed out.  Unfortunately, it seems the only way to change the majority mindset on some of these subjects is to be told by the government what is right and what is wrong.

[P4man]

Exactly; what it boils down to, is if you support discrimination of minorities or not. If that is your idea of freedom, your freedom to oppress or be oppressed by a majority (wether numerical or other, think apartheid), then I will have to disagree with you. Thats not my idea of freedom.

Racism breeds more racism; if you have lived all your life seeing blacks, jews, indians, gipsies or whatever being treated differently, you will accept that as the norm and treat and see them differently. No free market is going to fix that, on the contrary, a free market will most likely reinforce it, particularly if its about a small, economically unimportant minority. Boycots work both ways; business accepting to serve minorities and treat them equally risk being boycotted by a bigoted majority, and the circle wont end without some form of legislation.

Protecting the rights of minorities is IMHO a key aspect of safeguarding democracy, to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

[bb113]

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

I like your thoughts, and I kind of said the same thing earlier on, but the free market had centuries to cure various forms of racism, and never did cure some of them, as P4man pointed out.  Unfortunately, it seems the only way to change the majority mindset on some of these subjects is to be told by the government what is right and what is wrong.

So, Ron Paul's answer to this is that the discrimination was being enforced by the government. The anti-segregation laws came into being at the same time the segregation laws were outlawed. He attributes the success of the civil rights act primarily to the latter (outlaw government-enforced segregation), while many people attribute it to the former (enforce integration).

Second, he asks if these laws are necessary today. Would any contemporary business be able to survive if it was out and out discriminating against blacks, or would boycotts take care of it?

That's basically what he said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

I'm not sure if I completely buy it, but I follow his reasoning and it is not racist.

[SgtSpike]

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

I like your thoughts, and I kind of said the same thing earlier on, but the free market had centuries to cure various forms of racism, and never did cure some of them, as P4man pointed out.  Unfortunately, it seems the only way to change the majority mindset on some of these subjects is to be told by the government what is right and what is wrong.

So, Ron Paul's answer to this is that the discrimination was being enforced by the government. The anti-segregation laws came into being at the same time the segregation laws were outlawed. He attributes the success of the civil rights act primarily to the latter (outlaw government-enforced segregation), while many people attribute it to the former (enforce integration).

Second, he asks if these laws are necessary today. Would any contemporary business be able to survive if it was out and out discriminating against blacks, or would boycotts take care of it?

That's basically what he said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

I'm not sure if I completely buy it, but I follow his reasoning and it is not racist.

I think that because we're now in the politically-correct mindset that discrimination is wrong, it wouldn't be a problem to get rid of those laws today.  A few companies here and there would be discriminatory, boycotted, and shut down from lack of business, but overall, I think we'd be pretty good about "self-policing" those policies, now that we're in the right mindset.

[P4man]

I think that because we're now in the politically-correct mindset that discrimination is wrong, it wouldn't be a problem to get rid of those laws today.  A few companies here and there would be discriminatory, boycotted, and shut down from lack of business, but overall, I think we'd be pretty good about "self-policing" those policies, now that we're in the right mindset.

You really believe that? Perhaps you are just thinking about the black minority; after nearly half a century of (on paper) equal rights, I still have my doubts about that. Im pretty sure it does not apply to a ton of other minorities. You really think there would be a big backlash against companies or individuals discriminating against, say, Muslims, or gays, or Hispanics in certain communities?
I dont think so. Heck, in many aspects and states even the law discriminates against them.

[MoonShadow]

Racism breeds more racism; if you have lived all your life seeing blacks, jews, indians, gipsies or whatever being treated differently, you will accept that as the norm and treat and see them differently. No free market is going to fix that, on the contrary, a free market will most likely reinforce it, particularly if its about a small, economically unimportant minority.

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.

[P4man]

To be clear; I dont think Paul actually is a racist.
I do think he is misguided if he thinks governments have no business trying to regulate racism or other forms of oppression of minorities. On the contrary, I think its absolutely essential for a "free" society to ensure the freedoms of minorities.  Being allowed to be a racist prick refusing to serve  someone because of skin color or whatever, is not freedom; its the contrary, it infringes on the freedom of countless people to have a coffee, take a bus, cab or whatever.

[SgtSpike]

I think that because we're now in the politically-correct mindset that discrimination is wrong, it wouldn't be a problem to get rid of those laws today.  A few companies here and there would be discriminatory, boycotted, and shut down from lack of business, but overall, I think we'd be pretty good about "self-policing" those policies, now that we're in the right mindset.

You really believe that? Perhaps you are just thinking about the black minority; after nearly half a century of (on paper) equal rights, I still have my doubts about that. Im pretty sure it does not apply to a ton of other minorities. You really think there would be a big backlash against companies or individuals discriminating against, say, Muslims, or gays, or Hispanics in certain communities?
I dont think so. Heck, in many aspects and states even the law discriminates against them.

I do really believe that, yes.

[FredericBastiat]

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

Denial of service is not an overt forceful act. It does not prevent, prohibit or proscribe others from the use of their personal liberties and properties. Notwithstanding, we all descriminate in some way.

What if I said I'd never marry a green-faced person because I hate green-faced people? Are you going to create laws that force me to marry green-faced individuals due to my spiteful color discrimination? It is discrimination isn't it?

Where does the madness stop?

[P4man]

I do really believe that, yes.

So you think its political suicide to discriminate against, say, gays? I guess thats why everyone is in favor of gay marriage or gays openly serving in the military. I guess there is no discrimination against hispanics in any of the southern states either.

[P4man]

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

So you think not being allowed to take any bus, any cab or order a meal in any restaurant does not constitute an attack on your liberty? I wonder what the hell those blacks got so upset about in the 60s.

[FredericBastiat]

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

So you think not being allowed to take any bus, any cab or order a meal in any restaurant does not constitute an attack on your liberty? I wonder what the hell those blacks got so upset about in the 60s.

Who owns the bus, who owns the cab, who owns the meal? If I don't want you to ride my bus, tough. If I don't want you in my cab, tough. If I don't want you eating my meal, tough.

Get a clue.

[MoonShadow]

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

So you think not being allowed to take any bus, any cab or order a meal in any restaurant does not constitute an attack on your liberty? I wonder what the hell those blacks got so upset about in the 60s.

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.

[P4man]

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.

These segregation laws did not exist in the northern states, yet busses, schools ets where de factor segregated there too. Free market didnt help.

More over, we are talking about blacks, a large minority, that in fact, locally had a large majority. There is an economic incentive there; an incentive that doesnt exist for tiny minorities that do not live as concentrated as blacks did (and to some extend still do).

[FredericBastiat]

These segregation laws did not exist in the northern states, yet busses, schools ets where de factor segregated there too. Free market didnt help.

More over, we are talking about blacks, a large minority, that in fact, locally had a large majority. There is an economic incentive there; an incentive that doesnt exist for tiny minorities that do not live as concentrated as blacks did (and to some extend still do).

A free market didn't exist then either. My parents spoke of a time when they saw black men hanging from trees in the 40's and 50's and everybody just went about their business and ignored it. There's nothing free about that. A free market is one where your property, and person are not violated, and if they are, there are stiff penalties.

Blacks were not treated equitably under the same laws as other lighter skinned persons. That should have been their beef, not whether someone should serve them the same as everybody else. Similar or identical service shouldn't have been the legal issue. You preach against racism, you don't legalize it.

I hate racism, in fact, I abhor it, but I don't think laws change behaviors and beliefs just cause you write it on a piece of parchment. And besides, the side effects of violating property rights and personal behavior only makes the situation worse. Discrimination punishment is not proportional in its application. Proportionality is always key to equitable law.

[nrd525]

One shortcoming of the argument that says people should be able to discriminate is when they have a monopoly (or near monopoly).  For instance if you look at the private bus industry in the United States, Greyhound and its affiliates own around 80% of the routes.  You can get to major cities like NYC on one of the Chinese bus company routes, but Greyhound will go to around 10-50 times more locations.

Or if you were discriminating against Muslims, in my neighborhood which has a significant Muslim community, you still wouldn't necessarily have a single bank or major grocery store (non-corner store) that is owned by a Muslim - so the non-Muslims have an effective monopoly on these things.

Separate but equal is never really equal.

[MoonShadow]

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.

These segregation laws did not exist in the northern states, yet busses, schools ets where de factor segregated there too. Free market didnt help.

More over, we are talking about blacks, a large minority, that in fact, locally had a large majority. There is an economic incentive there; an incentive that doesnt exist for tiny minorities that do not live as concentrated as blacks did (and to some extend still do).

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.

[MoonShadow]

One shortcoming of the argument that says people should be able to discriminate is when they have a monopoly (or near monopoly).  For instance if you look at the private bus industry in the United States, Greyhound and its affiliates own around 80% of the routes.  You can get to major cities like NYC on one of the Chinese bus company routes, but Greyhound will go to around 10-50 times more locations.

Or if you were discriminating against Muslims, in my neighborhood which has a significant Muslim community, you still wouldn't necessarily have a single bank or major grocery store (non-corner store) that is owned by a Muslim - so the non-Muslims have an effective monopoly on these things.

Separate but equal is never really equal.

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

[bb113]

So now we have come to the real issue. Is it worth it to give the government power to enforce "racial integration" despite that it comes with the risk of these powers used to suppress freedom of action. Imagine what can be done with these these powers once someone you disagree with is in control. Is it worth it?

I realize that is vague but it is meant to be, just as the constitution is. What is the legal basis of corporate person-hood? 14th amendment.

[mad_miner]

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  

No, it was because white people would refuse to share busses and schools with blacks. The free market responded by giving what most of its customers demanded.

Anyone thinking racism and free markets are mutually exclusive, should read this:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/racism.htm

[bb113]

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  

No, it was because white people would refuse to share busses and schools with blacks. The free market responded by giving what most of its customers demanded.

Anyone thinking racism and free markets are mutually exclusive, should read this:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/racism.htm

This is a perfect example of why I got out of this type of field. It lends itself to endless argument which can always be co-opted to support whatever someone wants it to. It is an attempt to apply logic to a situation with too many unknown variables. Where is the data to support his arguments? Is data useless? Is the fact that African Americans were enslaved for hundreds of years a data point he is using?

[MoonShadow]

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  

No, it was because white people would refuse to share busses and schools with blacks. The free market responded by giving what most of its customers demanded.

Anyone thinking racism and free markets are mutually exclusive, should read this:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/racism.htm

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.

[NghtRppr]

No, it was because white people would refuse to share busses and schools with blacks. The free market responded by giving what most of its customers demanded.

I don't believe you but I'll accept it as true for the sake of argument. Even assuming that's true, it doesn't matter. No business is required to give you service. You don't get to point a gun at someone and say "let me be a customer", no matter how desperately you need that good or service and no matter how arbitrary the reason for being denied service. I think it sucks that some businesses are operated by racists but that doesn't give you the right to use violence. The use of violence is justified in immediate self-defense only.

[grondilu]

If a jewish merchand has the right to refuse serving a customer for whatever reason, what's stopping a non-jewish merchand to serve jewish people?

I believe any merchand should have the right to refuse to serve any client.  And if this allows racist behaviors and ostracism, so be it.

[FlipPro]

There is a real disconnect in this thread...

[FredericBastiat]

There is a real disconnect in this thread...

Disconnect with what? Libertarians just want the least invasive and violent form of government possible. What's wrong with that? The fact that people just want to serve certain people under specific constraints may, in some cases, appear arbitrary.

But what's considered arbitrary if property ownership is already absolute? In fact, property ceases to be property when it's not exclusive anymore. Or more precisely, it merely comes into possession and control of the strongest most violent individual willing to take it from you for whatever reason they deem necessary.

Welcome to the animal kingdom and Darwinism. Let the strongest survive. Such a beautiful world we live in...

[mai77]

If a jewish merchand has the right to refuse serving a customer for whatever reason, what's stopping a non-jewish merchand to serve jewish people?

I believe any merchand should have the right to refuse to serve any client.  And if this allows racist behaviors and ostracism, so be it.

Well then sure the Germans were right when they stopped serving jews and buying from jews in the 1930s. But why then all the fuss 

[myrkul]

If a jewish merchand has the right to refuse serving a customer for whatever reason, what's stopping a non-jewish merchand to serve jewish people?

I believe any merchand should have the right to refuse to serve any client.  And if this allows racist behaviors and ostracism, so be it.

Well then sure the Germans were right when they stopped serving jews and buying from jews in the 1930s. But why then all the fuss 

They started shipping them off to camps and killing them. That's kind of a no-no.

[mai77]

but the Israelis do it these days, no?

[myrkul]

For that matter, so does the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison

[kokjo]

Fuck yeah!!! More nazi discussions.


dudes you are a bunch of lame necrobumpers!

[foggyb]

Fuck yeah!!! More nazi discussions.
dudes you are a bunch of lame necrobumpers!

Its perfectly ok to continue an old discussion that is also an ongoing issue.

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

Some people choose a bi-sexual lifestyle. No one chooses to be bi-racial.

[myrkul]

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

Some people choose a bi-sexual lifestyle. No one chooses to be bi-racial.

Yeah, you don't choose to be bi, either.

[mai77]

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?

or vice versa, in fact  

depends on whether he is an anti-semitism whiner  

or one of those: http://www.picturehost.eu/uploads/a03cd6150981e8658bab53f971218e8b_swast2.jpg

[mai77]

which of the two cases ("vice versa") would be more likely to happen 

[ArmoredDragon]

Personally I believe fully in freedom of association. If you don't want to hire or serve a person for any reason at all, that is your right. Personally I'd like to have the business of even the weirdos, so I see no reason to discriminate.

[mai77]

so why do the jews complain then about Germany?

[myrkul]

so why do the jews complain then about Germany?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

[mai77]

Personally I believe fully in freedom of association.

so did Adolf Hitler presumably.

[ArmoredDragon]

Personally I believe fully in freedom of association.

so did Adolf Hitler presumably.

Not sure what you're getting at with that statement, but if it is what I think it is (e.g. against unrestricted freedom of association,) then that argument doesn't really work.

Hitler believed in a lot of things that many believe in today. For example, he strongly believed that nobody but the government should have access to firearms. That describes basically all of modern Europe as well as most of the Democratic party.

Just because somebody happens to agree with hitler on one particular subject doesn't make them the same as hitler, nor does that mean they agree with fascism.

If that isn't the argument you are trying to make, then I apologize, just your comment is a bit vague.

[niko]

I still can't decide. My knee-jerk reaction was "sure, I can refuse service to anyone I wish in my restaurant!" - but then, this restaurant operates within a public realm, and "public" has decided that it's not that simple. My premises are within their premises, so to say, so their rules apply. If I don't like it, I can pack my restaurant and move to the promised land. Or I can urge the public to change the rules, which may in fact be the best solution in this case (is this what RP argued?).

[myrkul]

I still can't decide. My knee-jerk reaction was "sure, I can refuse service to anyone I wish in my restaurant!" - but then, this restaurant operates within a public realm, and "public" has decided that it's not that simple. My premises are within their premises, so to say, so their rules apply. If I don't like it, I can pack my restaurant and move to the promised land. Or I can urge the public to change the rules, which may in fact be the best solution in this case (is this what RP argued?).

Or, here's an idea: If "the public" disagrees with how you use your property, they don't have to eat there. If enough of "the public" disagree with your practices, and too few of them agree, you'll have to change those practices, or go out of business.

[nebulus]

Why in the world would a skinhead eat in a Jewish restaurant?

[nimda]

I've given a lot of thought to racism. I'm repulsed by it, but I don't think it morally wrong, at least not initially.
Just as it's not morally wrong to believe the moon landing was a hoax, it's not morally wrong to believe in the superiority of a race.

Racism is factually wrong.

Just as it's morally wrong to shoot Buzz Aldrin, it's morally wrong to shoot a Jewish person.

When violence is involved for racial reasons, it becomes morally wrong. Most of the disgust with racism comes from a combination of its obvious factual incorrectness and the moral wrongs committed in its name (lynching, the Holocaust, etc).

Forcing someone not to murder is OK, because the force is less abhorrent than the prevented act. Forcing someone to serve another person is not OK, because the force involves violence which is worse than the initial refusal of service.

[myrkul]

I've given a lot of thought to racism. I'm repulsed by it, but I don't think it morally wrong, at least not initially.
Just as it's not morally wrong to believe the moon landing was a hoax, it's not morally wrong to believe in the superiority of a race.

Racism is factually wrong.

Just as it's morally wrong to shoot Buzz Aldrin, it's morally wrong to shoot a Jewish person.

When violence is involved for racial reasons, it becomes morally wrong. Most of the disgust with racism comes from a combination of its obvious factual incorrectness and the moral wrongs committed in its name (lynching, the Holocaust, etc).

Forcing someone not to murder is OK, because the force is less abhorrent than the prevented act. Forcing someone to serve another person is not OK, because the force involves violence which is worse than the initial refusal of service.

Well said.

[ArmoredDragon]

Honestly I think people these days are too paranoid about racism. The unfair campaign for example is just plain asinine, when I saw that commercial for the first time I felt like whipping my dick out and slapping them all across the face.

It's stupid how even the most benign actions you can take these days can be interpreted as racism. And worse is when you try to confront it, THAT is labeled as racism. If you want to silence somebody these days, all you have to do is accuse them of being racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM

[Twerka]

Did the skinhead do it something to you? If not, and if he is a good consumer, I think he should be treated as a normal consumer.

Treat others as you would like to be treated

[antibanker]

how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?

[myrkul]

how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?

If he wanted to, the skinhead would be well within his rights to expel them.

It's like this: It's your property. You can decide who can, and who cannot, eat there. It's as simple as that.

[ArmoredDragon]

how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?

If he wanted to, the skinhead would be well within his rights to expel them.

It's like this: It's your property. You can decide who can, and who cannot, eat there. It's as simple as that.

Depends on where you live. In the US, freedom of association is a pretty well recognized concept except for when it comes to employment. There are also zero hate speech laws. In many places of Europe however, if you kick somebody out of your restaurant and he happens to be a different color from you or a homosexual, he has a pretty good case for a lawsuit against you, possibly even criminal action, even if that isn't why you actually kicked him out.

[antibanker]

I bet, if a skinhead refuses to serve a jew in his own restaurant, the jew won't go down quietly. LOL

esp. in New York City aka Hymietown  LOL

[myrkul]

how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?

If he wanted to, the skinhead would be well within his rights to expel them.

It's like this: It's your property. You can decide who can, and who cannot, eat there. It's as simple as that.

Depends on where you live. In the US, freedom of association is a pretty well recognized concept except for when it comes to employment. There are also zero hate speech laws. In many places of Europe however, if you kick somebody out of your restaurant and he happens to be a different color from you or a homosexual, he has a pretty good case for a lawsuit against you, possibly even criminal action, even if that isn't why you actually kicked him out.

So what you're saying is, that government laws violate rights. Tell me something I don't know.

[Stunna]

If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".

[myrkul]

If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".

And if he knew you were using that quote in this context....

[antibanker]

well but that does not answer the OP's question.

if jews complain about Germans boycotting them back in 1935, jews cannot boycott skinheads in 2013.

it is that simple really.

so: jews should be forced to serve anybody who is going to pay the price they demand for their service.

[Mike Christ]

Skinheads are still around? That's amazing! Thought they went extinct like 90's pop music.

Anyway, a skinhead knows what he's getting into when he goes to a Jewish establishment. If the skinhead deems it appropriate, he's probably just looking for some eats. If he acts up, the owner should kick him out.

I don't understand "rights". The jewish owner should do what's best for his establishment. There is no right to kick a rowdy customer out; there is simply the most logical decision. Protect your current clientelle by keeping the peace. If, however, the skinhead eats and is peaceful and pays, it would be bad business to tell him not to come back. Of course you want him to come back; he's a paying customer, he's hungry, personal beliefs need not apply. If the Jewish owner wants to shoot himself in the foot, why does the government deem it inappropriate? It's already a hit to his business to turn clients away; if he has a good reason, he should do it.

[antibanker]

well if you don't like the example, take a man of colour instead of the skinhead.

[MysteryMiner]

As a racist I try to avoid jewish and immigrant establishments whenever possible. Long time ago I entered jewish restaurant and asked for pig steak. Surprisingly me and my friends were kindly offered alternate kosher foods. I was dressed in black shirt with runes and black beret, cammo pants and paratrooper boots so the waitress could not mistake us for ordinary customers.

I don't want to force jews to serve me at their restaurants. By buying from them I will make them even more richer by using their business. And also I want to be allowed not to serve blacks or jews if I have my own shop. The problem might be the double standards when I'm not served at jewish restaurant because I'm known racist but I must serve niggers and immigrants at my restaurant or computer workshop.

[antibanker]

of course, a jew trying to enforce his "right to be served" might find himself without his money but a dish of nicely spiced dogshit in return.

I wonder whether a skinhead is entitled to that line of action?

[Mike Christ]

I like the motto: "Everyone gets the same rights, or nobody does." Jews don't get special treatment. Skinneads don't get special treatment. Blacks don't get special treatment. Whites don't get special treatment. But the government, in all its holiness, enables special treatment. It enables abuse; gives racists an excuse for their racism. Just another non-service the government provides.

Nobody should be forced one way or another. To believe it's okay to force, is to be a fascist. There's a surprising amount of those in a country which propagates freedom.

[antibanker]

so the jews should stop whining over not being served in Germany 1935.

a novel approach!

[Mike Christ]

so the jews should stop whining over not being served in Germany 1935.

a novel approach!

They should. But they shouldn't be forced to.

[antibanker]

but would they try to force a skinhead restaurant owner to serve them a dish when he refuses to serve a jew?

[Stardust]

If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".

And if he knew you were using that quote in this context....

You do know that Ghandi was a friend of Hitler, yes?

As a racist I try to avoid jewish and immigrant establishments whenever possible. Long time ago I entered jewish restaurant and asked for pig steak. Surprisingly me and my friends were kindly offered alternate kosher foods. I was dressed in black shirt with runes and black beret, cammo pants and paratrooper boots so the waitress could not mistake us for ordinary customers.

Sounds like a scene from The Beliver: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247199/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
a movie that can be enjoyed by both nazis and jews alike.

[myrkul]

If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".

And if he knew you were using that quote in this context....

You do know that Ghandi was a friend of Hitler, yes?

Gandhi was everybody's friend.

I assume you're going to point to the letter, next, and so I will borrow a quote from one of the commenters here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/cconnelly/ghandis-letter-to-adolf-hitler-s3x

You may be surprised to learn that pleading with a man and then calling him a giant douchenozzle doesn't win many points in diplomacy. There is no indication in the letter that he had an actual face to face friendly relationship with Hitler, in fact it reads as one who is addressing someone they've never met.

And another:

It is a common Indian practice to address strangers as 'friend' or 'brother'. In fact Swami Vivekanand, an Indian Philosopher , while addressing a conference in Chicago in 1893, started his lecture by saying," My Dear Sisters and Brothers of America.." and he got standing ovation.

[antibanker]

yes.

[ArmoredDragon]

If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".

And if he knew you were using that quote in this context....

You do know that Ghandi was a friend of Hitler, yes?

Gandhi was everybody's friend.

I assume you're going to point to the letter, next, and so I will borrow a quote from one of the commenters here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/cconnelly/ghandis-letter-to-adolf-hitler-s3x

You may be surprised to learn that pleading with a man and then calling him a giant douchenozzle doesn't win many points in diplomacy. There is no indication in the letter that he had an actual face to face friendly relationship with Hitler, in fact it reads as one who is addressing someone they've never met.

And another:

It is a common Indian practice to address strangers as 'friend' or 'brother'. In fact Swami Vivekanand, an Indian Philosopher , while addressing a conference in Chicago in 1893, started his lecture by saying," My Dear Sisters and Brothers of America.." and he got standing ovation.

Gandhi was very vocal about how he hated Khafirs (black people.)

[myrkul]

Gandhi was very vocal about how he hated Khafirs (black people.)

Oh my. Learn something new every day, I suppose.

“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

So perhaps he might approve of the use of that quote in that context after all.

[antibanker]

Hitler tried a lot of avenues to follow Ghandi and not have a war. But Churchill was bought and paid for by a tiny group of jews who seeked the destruction of the British Empire, which Churchill achieved for them.

[antibanker]

Should a Jewish restaurant owner be forced to serve a skinhead?

Sure! And why not? Palestine saw what happens when jews have too much wiggle room.

[myrkul]

You're still here?

[Mike Christ]

Should a Jewish restaurant owner be forced to serve a skinhead?

Sure! And why not? Palestine saw what happens when jews have too much wiggle room.

Isn't there a skinhead forum floating on the web somewhere?  I'm sure you'll find lots of fascits just like you.

[kokjo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_Behind_the_Mask_of_Divinity

[myrkul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_Behind_the_Mask_of_Divinity

This sums it up well:

Alan Caruba, the editor of Bookviews.com mentioned the book in its December 2004 issue, and stated "We need to remember that even great men had their flaws and Col. Singh, a career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and of Gandhi, presents his facts in a compelling way."

[antibanker]

Ghandi should have written to Churchill too. After all, they did not mind Stalin attacking Poland.

[kokjo]

Ghandi should have written to Churchill too. After all, they did not mind Stalin attacking Poland.

have you ever tried to write a post with more then 100 words, and more than 10 sentences?

[skull88]

"We need to remember that even great men had their flaws"

True, for some the following may be shocking, but even I have my flaws. I reach near perfection, but there are always those tiny little things. 

That said, no one should be forced to do anything, it's the Jewish guy his restaurant, he choses who he's serving and who not.

[Mike Christ]

Ghandi should have written to Churchill too. After all, they did not mind Stalin attacking Poland.

Have you ever tried to write a post with more than 100 words and 10 sentences?

My address is in the sig.

Also, a quick peek at posting history will answer your question.

[kokjo]

Ghandi should have written to Churchill too. After all, they did not mind Stalin attacking Poland.

Have you ever tried to write a post with more than 100 words and 10 sentences?

My address is in the sig.

Also, a quick peek at posting history will answer your question.

Welcome grammar nazi!

for you information's when i asked he about hims count for words in hims post's, it are a so called re-to-ri-cal-led que-sti-on.

[antibanker]

"We need to remember that even great men had their flaws"

True, for some the following may be shocking, but even I have my flaws. I reach near perfection, but there are always those tiny little things. 

That said, no one should be forced to do anything, it's the Jewish guy his restaurant, he choses who he's serving and who not.

what utter bull.


for 70 years now the friggin' jews keep whining, complaining and lamenting over the evil Germans, who simply figured that jewish products are shit and they did not buy anything from jews anymore in 1935, so jews made no profit from hard working Germans.


now all of a sudden none of this applies anymore?

gotta be kidding 

[Mike Christ]

Ghandi should have written to Churchill too. After all, they did not mind Stalin attacking Poland.

Have you ever tried to write a post with more than 100 words and 10 sentences?

My address is in the sig.

Also, a quick peek at posting history will answer your question.

Welcome, grammar Nazi!

I'm an idiot, please help me.

Good thing you have me.  How else would you learn anything on the Internet?

If he gave you a short answer, it's because that's all that was needed.  Nobody needs three novels to explain why the Earth is round.  You could probably fit that explanation into one or two sentences, couldn't you?

Pro tip: don't be a smartass, and then take offence to the backfire.

[kokjo]

Ghandi should have written to Churchill too. After all, they did not mind Stalin attacking Poland.

Have you ever tried to write a post with more than 100 words and 10 sentences?

My address is in the sig.

Also, a quick peek at posting history will answer your question.

Welcome, grammar Nazi!

I'm an idiot, please help me.

Good thing you have me.  How else would you learn anything on the Internet?

If he gave you a short answer, it's because that's all that was needed.  Nobody needs three novels to explain why the Earth is round.  You could probably fit that explanation into one or two sentences, couldn't you?

Pro tip: don't be a smartass, and then take offence to the backfire.

no, i don't need you to teach me english, becuase i dont care about my english. english is a tool, if people can understand it is good enough.
have you seen his comments? they all(mostly) have the same form:
<statement saying jews are bad>. <claim that an old and death person was controlled by jews>.

[skull88]

"We need to remember that even great men had their flaws"

True, for some the following may be shocking, but even I have my flaws. I reach near perfection, but there are always those tiny little things. 

That said, no one should be forced to do anything, it's the Jewish guy his restaurant, he choses who he's serving and who not.

what utter bull.


for 70 years now the friggin' jews keep whining, complaining and lamenting over the evil Germans, who simply figured that jewish products are shit and they did not buy anything from jews anymore in 1935, so jews made no profit from hard working Germans.


now all of a sudden none of this applies anymore?

gotta be kidding 

I think a restaurant owner should have the right to serve food to whoever he wants, and you call it utter bull and your argument is about something that actually has nothing to do with it.

If it is a Jew or not doesn't actually matter in this case, or you want to force only Jewish restaurant owners to serve everybody?
A guy working hard in his own restaurant, yeah that are the jews you gotta fight, this guy has nothing to do with the jews that had and have the most power in the whole world.

[antibanker]

pro-jew folks sometime are low learners.

In 1935, one would ask:

Should a German restaurant owner be forced to serve a jew?

At the time, the answer was: "hell, no!"

And the jews kept complaining. So who is wrong?

[Mike Christ]

no, i don't need you to teach me english, becuase i dont care about my english. english is a tool, if people can understand it is good enough.
have you seen his comments? they all(mostly) have the same form:
<statement saying jews are bad>. <claim that an old and death person was controlled by jews>.

That's dangerous talk; there is no such thing as "good enough."

But anyway, I apologize, I could've sworn you were referring to someone else   Yeah, he really doesn't form his thoughts well.

pro-jew folks sometime are low learners.

In 1935, one would ask:

Should a German restaurant owner be forced to serve a jew?

At the time, the answer was: "hell, no!"

And the jews kept complaining. So who is wrong?

There is no right and wrong.  The Jews felt they were right.  The Germans felt they were right.

The question is: why are you so in love with these people?  You realize there's more than just this one religion, right?

[antibanker]

you should become a judge or jury member and agree with all parties... LOL

[Mike Christ]

The question is: why are you so in love with these people?  You realize there's more than just this one religion, right?

[antibanker]

I just try to educate people on the truth about jews. That's all.

It's plain to see for every youtube user.

[kokjo]

I just try to educate people on the truth about jews. That's all.

It's plain to see for every youtube user.

3 sentences on 2 lines, you are improving my dumb friend.

[Mike Christ]

I just try to educate people on the truth about jews. That's all.

It's plain to see for every youtube user.

That's what I'm asking.  Why?  I already know about all the conceptions and misconceptions about Jews.  What makes you so obsessed with them?

[antibanker]

I'm not. I just figured that the truth about jews is not well known due to the Holocaust industry. So it's more important to properly talk the truth about jews than to say the truth about people from Finnland. The Finns spread fewer lies about themselves.

[Mike Christ]

I'm not. I just figured that the truth about jews is not well known due to the Holocaust industry. So it's more important to properly talk the truth about jews than to say the truth about people from Finnland. The Finns spread fewer lies about themselves.

Almost all 220 posts of yours have been about Jews.  And we're on a website that has nothing to do with Jews.

That's an obsession.

[myrkul]

I'm not. I just figured that the truth about jews is not well known due to the Holocaust industry. So it's more important to properly talk the truth about jews than to say the truth about people from Finnland. The Finns spread fewer lies about themselves.

Almost all 220 posts of yours have been about Jews.  And we're on a website that has nothing to do with Jews.

That's an obsession.

+1

[antibanker]

well both of you are jewish or pro-jewish, so...

reality hurts sometimes! 

[Mike Christ]

well both of you are jewish or pro-jewish, so...

reality hurts sometimes! 

I'm not Jewish, nor do I sympathize with them.  However, it's kinda funny:

Most popular boards by posts:
Politics & Society      133
Off-topic      16
Bitcoin Discussion      14
Off-Topic (Deutsch)      14
Deutsch (German)      12

Most popular boards by activity:
Off-Topic (Deutsch)      1.4553%
Politics & Society      0.2858%
Trading und Spekulation      0.1794%
Other      0.1738%
Anfänger und Hilfe      0.0961%
Deutsch (German)      0.0759%
Biete      0.0481%
Off-topic      0.0189%
Mining (Deutsch)      0.0166%
Press      0.0089%

Seriously?

[myrkul]

well both of you are jewish or pro-jewish, so...

reality hurts sometimes! 

I'm not Jewish, nor do I sympathize with them.  However, it's kinda funny:

Most popular boards by posts:
Politics & Society      133
Off-topic      16
Bitcoin Discussion      14
Off-Topic (Deutsch)      14
Deutsch (German)      12

Most popular boards by activity:
Off-Topic (Deutsch)      1.4553%
Politics & Society      0.2858%
Trading und Spekulation      0.1794%
Other      0.1738%
Anfänger und Hilfe      0.0961%
Deutsch (German)      0.0759%
Biete      0.0481%
Off-topic      0.0189%
Mining (Deutsch)      0.0166%
Press      0.0089%

Seriously?

My posts kinda look like that...

But at least I'm not ranting about the jews.

Hey, isn't Antisemitism illegal in Germany?

[antibanker]

It will be in Jewrmany

[skull88]

pro-jew folks sometime are low learners.

In 1935, one would ask:

Should a German restaurant owner be forced to serve a jew?

At the time, the answer was: "hell, no!"

And the jews kept complaining. So who is wrong?

First of all, we are now 2013, totally different time.
Second, if you act like the ones you hate, doesn't that make you the same?

And it's nice you want to complain about the holocaust industry, which I'm not going to deny it exists. But at least get your facts straight and realise every human is different, you can't say all jews are the same and they are all bad. If one acts normal and doesn't do bad things, I'll act normal to him. If someones does things I think aren't right, I will threat him as the piece of shit he is.

I also don't think you inform a lot of people or get them behind your cause, your pushing them away.

[Stardust]

It will be in Jewrmany

LOL! I had to laugh at this. Mostly because of this: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/USA

[MysteryMiner]

There is no right and wrong.  The Jews felt they were right.  The Germans felt they were right.

The Germans were standing on their own land!! Who is right at their own home?

First of all, we are now 2013, totally different time.

There are things that never change. Pi was 3.14xxxxx back in ancient Greece and today. The same with nation's rights and proper order of things. They were same in 1930 Germany and are today. Only thing that changes are how government steer politics and sheeple in becoming nationless livestock without roots and higher principles in life than new iPhone.

[Mike Christ]

The Germans were standing on their own land!! Who is right at their own home?

So the Jews did not live in Germany?  News to me.

Hey, remember that guy we invited in our house?  Who the fuck does he think he is, being in our house?!  OH and I bet he's the source of all our problems, too!  Let's get him!

[MysteryMiner]

The Germans were standing on their own land!! Who is right at their own home?

So the Jews did not live in Germany?  News to me.

Hey, remember that guy we invited in our house?  Who the fuck does he think he is, being in our house?!  OH and I bet he's the source of all our problems, too!  Let's get him!

Second quote is so true! The only significant difference is that germans did not invite jews!

[Mike Christ]

The Germans were standing on their own land!! Who is right at their own home?

So the Jews did not live in Germany?  News to me.

Hey, remember that guy we invited in our house?  Who the fuck does he think he is, being in our house?!  OH and I bet he's the source of all our problems, too!  Let's get him!

Second quote is so true! The only significant difference is that germans did not invite jews!

Imagine migrating to America, living there for most your life, then suddenly America's like "Fuck all these immigrants, I'm tired of them taking our jerbs," and thus, despite the Americans being immigrants themselves, would tell you to get out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there weren't always Germans, and there wasn't always a Germany.

[myrkul]

The Germans were standing on their own land!! Who is right at their own home?

So the Jews did not live in Germany?  News to me.

Hey, remember that guy we invited in our house?  Who the fuck does he think he is, being in our house?!  OH and I bet he's the source of all our problems, too!  Let's get him!

Second quote is so true! The only significant difference is that germans did not invite jews!

True enough, I suppose. They'd just been there the whole time. So, perhaps it should be:

Hey, remember that guy who's been living in our house ever since we built it around him?  Who the fuck does he think he is, being in our house?!  OH and I bet he's the source of all our problems, too!  Let's get him!

Might even be fitting to say:

Hey, remember that guy who's been living in our house ever since he helped us build it?  Who the fuck does he think he is, being in our house?!  OH and I bet he's the source of all our problems, too!  Let's get him!

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

[Mike Christ]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

Wow   Wasn't expecting that one.  So it's more like Europeans immigrating to America and kicking the natives out, in that case.

[myrkul]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

Wow   Wasn't expecting that one.  So it's more like Europeans immigrating to America and kicking the natives out, in that case.

Closer - but even this is a bad analogy - to the Natives deciding to kick out all the Europeans from Oklahoma and annexing Texas.

[antibanker]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

Germany exist multiple times longer than friggin' Jewland, whose history may be over any time in the near future, Inshallah.

[myrkul]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

Germany exist multiple times longer than friggin' Jewland, whose history may be over any time in the near future, Inshallah.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. We're not talking about Israel. We're talking about the land that became Germany. And Jews were living there long before it became "Germany."

[MysteryMiner]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

Germany exist multiple times longer than friggin' Jewland, whose history may be over any time in the near future, Inshallah.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. We're not talking about Israel. We're talking about the land that became Germany. And Jews were living there long before it became "Germany."

All that matters now germanic tribes lived in land what become Germany while jews were fucking goats somewhere in desert.

[myrkul]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

Germany exist multiple times longer than friggin' Jewland, whose history may be over any time in the near future, Inshallah.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. We're not talking about Israel. We're talking about the land that became Germany. And Jews were living there long before it became "Germany."

All that matters now germanic tribes lived in land what become Germany while jews were fucking goats somewhere in desert.

Actually, that never mattered.

[myrkul]

god knows what they f****d in some backwater hellhole in asia. jew are intruders in Europe, they are no Europeans, never will be.

I guess that means I'm not an American, since my ancestors came over on a boat?

Pretty sure a "European" is someone who was born in Europe.

[MysteryMiner]

god knows what they f****d in some backwater hellhole in asia. jew are intruders in Europe, they are no Europeans, never will be.

I guess that means I'm not an American, since my ancestors came over on a boat?

Pretty sure a "European" is someone who was born in Europe.

People are born in wrong places all over time. The homeland is place from where your ancestors came. This concept is not understandable by people who measure everything with material values.

It reminds me one old censored communist movie. In original version it was:

Army officer speaks about what is homeland. That homeland is place where you are born, says officer. Young soldier comes forward and asks
- I'm born on ship while crossing ocean. Where is my homeland then?
- Then You are without homeland!

the censored/edited version have this dialogue:

- I'm born on ship while crossing ocean. Where is my homeland then?
- Then You are a communist!

if the film would be censored in 21-th century western world not 1960-ties USSR, it would sound like this:

- I'm born on ship while crossing ocean. Where is my homeland then?
- Then You are cosmopolitan!

[myrkul]

god knows what they f****d in some backwater hellhole in asia. jew are intruders in Europe, they are no Europeans, never will be.

I guess that means I'm not an American, since my ancestors came over on a boat?

Pretty sure a "European" is someone who was born in Europe.

People are born in wrong places all over time. The homeland is place from where your ancestors came. This concept is not understandable by people who measure everything with material values.

My ancestors come from England, Ireland, Germany and Hawaii. Where is my homeland?

[Mike Christ]

People are born in wrong places all over time. The homeland is place from where your ancestors came. This concept is not understandable by people who measure everything with material values.

We're all from the same stretch of land that split off into what it is now.  And even if we're referring to the last 2 thousand years, my ancestors are from opposite ends of the world.  This logic makes no sense.  My home is planet Earth.  Where are you from, exactly?

[myrkul]

People are born in wrong places all over time. The homeland is place from where your ancestors came. This concept is not understandable by people who measure everything with material values.

We're all from the same stretch of land that split off into what it is now.  And even if we're referring to the last 2 thousand years, my ancestors are from opposite ends of the world.  This logic makes no sense.  My home is planet Earth.  Where are you from, exactly?

Excellent point. We've already established that every human on this planet is descended from Africans. So, I guess, he's an African. Just like me, you, and the Jews, too.

Or maybe he's from the moon.

[darkmule]

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?

Depends.  Why is the Jewish owner refusing to serve the guy?

Civil rights laws only protects certain classes, like race, religion or national origin.  If he's refusing to serve the guy because he is a Gentile, then that is prohibited.

However, politics is not a protected class.  He can refuse to serve a neo-Nazi, a guy whose haircut he doesn't like, a Democrat, a Republican, a lawyer, because he doesn't like lawyers, or any other non-protected class.

So the short answer is no, a Jewish owner of an eatery can't be forced to serve anyone he doesn't want to serve, unless the reason is that the person falls into a very narrow set of categories of "protected classes."  Political persuasion does not enter into this.

Just as a landlord could refuse to rent to a lawyer because he decided that lawyers tend to be a pain in the ass and sue him, he could refuse to rent to a skinhead because he decided that skinheads tend to trash the place.

[myrkul]

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?

Depends.  Why is the Jewish owner refusing to serve the guy?

Doesn't matter. it's his right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, even no reason at all.

[darkmule]

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?

Depends.  Why is the Jewish owner refusing to serve the guy?

Doesn't matter. it's his right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, even no reason at all.

So you say.  But in the world we call "reality," where things actually happen, he could have made a bad decision and excluded the guy because of his race.  In that event, the guy could sue him, win an enormous judgment, and then guys with guns would show up and seize the property.

In this thing we call "reality," there are laws that say he can refuse service to this guy, even for no reason at all, with impunity.  However, if he refuses service for the wrong reason, he loses a lawsuit, loses everything he owns, perhaps even goes to prison.

People care a lot more about what happens to them in reality than in fantasies.

[myrkul]

In this thing we call "reality," there are laws that say he can refuse service to this guy, even for no reason at all, with impunity.  However, if he refuses service for the wrong reason, he loses a lawsuit, loses everything he owns, perhaps even goes to prison.

Only because of State force. Were his property rights respected, he could exclude the skinhead for no other reason than he was a goy. Freedom of association means freedom to not associate.

[hammz]

Everyone is born into this world bawling their brains out and crapping their diapers.

Nobody has the right to tell anyone what to do.  No such right exists.

[nimda]

Inane bullshit

Didn't I ignore this guy already?

[Anon136]

no one should be forced to do anything unless they are being forced to stop harming someone who is behaving peacefully.

[Anon136]

so then boycotting jews is perfectly moral?

moral absolutely not. But neither is it moral to use violence against someone for doing that. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[yvv]

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?

No. Let the nazi bastard starve to death. I am not jew, my head is bold, but not "skinhead". If I happen to be around your eatery, I'll help you to finish that moron.

[vampire]

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?

yes, by all means!

go back 3 posts to read why!

customer is king, esp. in NYC!

LOL since you don't live in NYC, why don't you just shut the fuck up?

[skull88]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

This is not right.
Julius Ceasar was the first to call the region east of the Rhine Germania, this was before 44BC. The first Jews came to Germania at the end of 1AD. Back than the Netherlands and the Flemish and German part of Belgium also belonged to it but besides that it was the Germany we know today. The first Jews probably hadn't much trouble here because the Germanic Tribes (and Nordic ones) where not really barbarians like people assume they were. If you learn more from the Germanic and Nordic Mythology you'll realize it is a beautiful and useful faith  (and I say this as an atheist). Maybe faith is a wrong name it was more some kind of wisdom that they told to each other from generation to generation. One of the things it said was to be good for strangers, and that those strangers had another god wasn't really a problem, because you had the freedom to choose your own favorite gods, and people back than didn't hate each other because you worshiped Wodan and your neighbor Freya. This eventually let to the destruction of a big part of our culture when Christianity came in like the Trojan horse.

But when the name already existed (and the people and culture actually already existed way back before that) Judaism was still something from the desert. 

Not that this all doesn't make your reasoning correct, the Jewish restaurant owner has the freedom to choose who he serves and who not. And the people against it who seem to be very pro the German people, should actually maybe learn their (own?) culture. Because freedom is in our genes but knocked down by faith and governments who want to control us, our ancestors would disapprove to force someone to do something he doesn't want, even if he worships a god we have no connection to. We should fight for our freedom, and freedom isn't something you can throw in the ring when it's beneficial for yourself. It is something that always should be applied, even for the people you don't like. As long as you don't harm anyone, you should do what you want, the Jewish person doesn't harm anyone if he doesn't serve the skinhead, the skinhead can eat somewhere else.

[kokjo]

The first Jews probably hadn't much trouble here because the Germanic Tribes (and Nordic ones) where not really barbarians like people assume they were.

are you telling me Asterix and Obelix did not exist?

[myrkul]

Jews had been living in Germany for much longer than there even was a Germany.

This is not right.
Julius Ceasar was the first to call the region east of the Rhine Germania, this was before 44BC. The first Jews came to Germania at the end of 1AD.

Valid point, But I was speaking more along the lines of the Germany we know and love today... The culturally and linguistically linked area that pieced itself together from the shattered remnants of the Holy Roman Empire... with Jews included like raisins in a fruitcake.

[skull88]

The first Jews probably hadn't much trouble here because the Germanic Tribes (and Nordic ones) where not really barbarians like people assume they were.

are you telling me Asterix and Obelix did not exist?

They were Gauls

[cypher-punk]

What is the point of focusing on a jewish person? Do they have any privilege over muslim restaurant owners? I don't think so.

[MysteryMiner]

What is the point of focusing on a jewish person? Do they have any privilege over muslim restaurant owners? I don't think so.

De Facto they have all privileges. World is run by jews.

[kokjo]

What is the point of focusing on a jewish person? Do they have any privilege over muslim restaurant owners? I don't think so.

De Facto they have all privileges. World is run by jews.

implication: Bitcoin was created by a jew.

[cypher-punk]

What is the point of focusing on a jewish person? Do they have any privilege over muslim restaurant owners? I don't think so.

De Facto they have all privileges. World is run by jews.

implication: Bitcoin was created by a jew.

hardly.

[Rassah]

What is the point of focusing on a jewish person? Do they have any privilege over muslim restaurant owners? I don't think so.

De Facto they have all privileges. World is run by jews.

Obama claims he's christian, misdirects people into thinking he's secretly muslim, but is actually secretly a Jewish guy in blackface 

[cypher-punk]

Well the  Anthony Weiner (Dem.) case seemed to contradict that   let's see how well he fares...  

Btw. would the question also apply if Weiner was the waiter and the skinhead was gay?