Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 05:56:39 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead?  (Read 8253 times)
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 10:59:10 PM
 #21

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.
1480787799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787799
Reply with quote  #2

1480787799
Report to moderator
1480787799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787799
Reply with quote  #2

1480787799
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480787799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787799
Reply with quote  #2

1480787799
Report to moderator
1480787799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787799
Reply with quote  #2

1480787799
Report to moderator
1480787799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480787799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480787799
Reply with quote  #2

1480787799
Report to moderator
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 11:10:07 PM
 #22

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:

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 11:32:48 PM
 #23

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.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 11:35:22 PM
 #24

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:

Quote
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.  Smiley

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 10, 2012, 11:38:44 PM
 #25

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!!!

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 11:39:33 PM
 #26

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  Cheesy.

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.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 10, 2012, 11:42:07 PM
 #27

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  Cheesy.

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.

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 11:44:23 PM
 #28

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.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 10, 2012, 11:47:06 PM
 #29

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  Cheesy.

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.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 11, 2012, 12:19:59 AM
 #30

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  Cheesy.

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.

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 12:55:02 AM
 #31

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  Cheesy.

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

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 01:35:30 AM
 #32

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

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
nrd525
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1182


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:22:02 AM
 #33

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.

Don't day trade.
nrd525
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1182


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:24:09 AM
 #34

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.

Don't day trade.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 05:38:16 AM
 #35

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. 

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:41:01 PM
 #36

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.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 04:58:27 PM
 #37

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.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 05:05:10 PM
 #38

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 11, 2012, 05:12:47 PM
 #39

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
January 11, 2012, 05:15:27 PM
 #40

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.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!