Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You own a business, coffee shop, restaurant, internet cafe, or whatever. Should you be able to post a sign which says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Does that give you the right, to refuse service to blacks, Jews, or anyone else, you do not like?
What do you call it when clubs in big cities have someone outside deciding who can and cannot get in? I don't see anyone sticking up for those not admitted or since it is apparently legal, even mentioning that they are outraged over unfair treatment due to nothing they've done but just based on what they look like.
I'm white--and I've been actively discouraged from patronizing certain businesses. It's okay, I'm happy to go elsewhere. All they need do is request that I leave.
So if I ask you to leave this forum, will you do that?
I don't own the forum, so I can't really ask you to do that, but then again you didn't own the Subway shop when you asked the police officer to leave.
So if I ask you to leave this forum, will you do that?
I don't own the forum, so I can't really ask you to do that, but then again you didn't own the Subway shop when you asked the police officer to leave.
See how it works?
What a stupid comment. The forum administrators can ban your account or ban your IP address anytime they want to, for whatever reason they want, and you have absolutely no repercussion on the matter.
Secondly, there is more than one forum administrator, and all but one doesn't own this site, yet all of them have this power or implied power. If the owner of the website does not want to lend them this power he will either take away the power and possibly write an apology to whomever was offended.
In the case of Subway, works basically the same way.
I don't know where you've been, but black people have been actively discouraged from doing just about everything, everywhere. Attend school, buy a home, eat in a restaurant, sit wherever they want on a bus, etc. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't NEED these laws in the first place. And we DO need these laws, because many people; and yes, I'm talking about white people, have already proven historically that they can't do the right thing for other people without them.
Boy... I've had my differences with people before on this forum over a boatload of political issues, but what kind of person would want to deny another human being goods and services or an equal opportunity at securing a place to live? I can't believe we would even have to talk about these things in the 21st century.
What a bigoted post. It's all the white mans fault with you people. Instead of concentrating on what the real problems are you people just make scapegoats out of people and ignore reality. People like this will NEVER advance and evolution may just take them out all together. Apathy in society is the worst thing for society. Evolution wipes out apathy because it is a huge strain on everything you could possibly imagine and that is how Natural Selection works. If you want to advance you people will need to throw away the crutches and rise above this type of mentality.
As I understand it, a business can ban one individual for almost any reason. No Shoes, No Shirt; No Service. "We're sorry, sir, but a necktie is proper attire." A business cannot ban groups based on criteria listed in the Civil Rights Act.
As I understand it, a business can ban one individual for almost any reason. No Shoes, No Shirt; No Service. "We're sorry, sir, but a necktie is proper attire." A business cannot ban groups based on criteria listed in the Civil Rights Act.
We understand how the civil rights act has created a "protected" class whom are not allowed to be discriminated against. But the question is, why is discrimination not just discrimination? If you believe in principle that you should not be allowed to discriminate, then why isn't all discrimination protected? Who gets to decide what is and what isn't acceptable? Is the civil rights act even constitutional? On what grounds is it constitutional?
The civil rights act does not protect discrimination based on profession, and recently a police officer was discriminated against because of his profession. Should that be acceptable? What about teachers? Lawyers? Fast-food employees? Should we add a few more "protected classes" to the civil rights act? When does it end?
The problem I have is that, everyone knows that in principle the federal government should not have the power to limit peoples freedom of speech or freedom of association in regards to private property/businesses. This is why discrimination by other factors(such as age, appearances, professions, etc) are not protected at all.
This is what a true advocate of liberty, Milton Friedman, said about the Civil rights act.
"Is there any difference in principle between the taste that leads a householder to prefer an attractive servant to an ugly one and the taste that leads another to prefer a Negro to a white or a white to a Negro, except that we sympathize and agree with the one taste and may not agree with the other? I do not mean to say that all tastes are equally good. On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think less of them for it. But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others."
John Stuart Mill said this about the government role.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
This is a little information about the first amendment.
"Controversies about speech protected by the First Amendment seem to arise because the speech at issue is unpopular or controversial or highly offensive for various reasons. Yet a hallmark of the Bill of Rights is protection of minority views. If the First Amendment only protected popular speech, supported by the majority of citizens, then the constitutional protection would not be needed. Instead we could simply have a referendum with the majority deciding which speech should be allowed. In a sense, of course, Congressional representation constitutes a majority referendum. If the majority of citizens is presumed to speak through Congress, and if a majority of Congress votes to ban certain speech, then the First Amendment intervenes to prohibit that suppression by the majority."
I understand that racial discrimination is repulsive, but I should not be able to force a racist to stop being a racist, anymore than a racist should be able to force me to become a racist. Once you agree that the government has the right to regulate personal behavior, then you are opening the door for the potential for the government to regulate all behavior.
If you still don't understand why I disagree with anti-discrimination laws. You should watch this video.
refusal to serve is a business right. but that right pertains to behavior not skin tone.
unfortunately few will admit they were refused service bek of behavior.
What a bigoted post. It's all the white mans fault with you people. Instead of concentrating on what the real problems are you people just make scapegoats out of people and ignore reality. People like this will NEVER advance and evolution may just take them out all together. Apathy in society is the worst thing for society. Evolution wipes out apathy because it is a huge strain on everything you could possibly imagine and that is how Natural Selection works. If you want to advance you people will need to throw away the crutches and rise above this type of mentality.
Actually natural selection does not favor "the fittest". It favors those who are most able to reproduce in numbers enough to insure the species' survival.
That's especially true in places like Highland Park, Texas, Grosse Pointe, Michigan, Darien, Connecticut, the whole state of Idaho and other small, wealthy suburbs or sections of towns that have consciously or unconsciously discouraged people of color from moving within their boundaries.
Wow, I am not sure if you are just being sarcastic but you have lied about your statement regarding "the whole state of Idaho". You might need to get out more, read more, and educate youself before you make statements that are lies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
