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

[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.

[1714186191]

1714186191

[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.