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.
I voted no just as fast as the one asked about black people. I acknowledge if its private its not subject to every public law but that doesn't make it morally right. We're the same nationality technically speaking. I'm kind of surprised that 56% voted yes.
Just think of it in a context something like. Diner's Club not Accepted
I voted no just as fast as the one asked about black people. I acknowledge if its private its not subject to every public law but that doesn't make it morally right. We're the same nationality technically speaking. I'm kind of surprised that 56% voted yes.
Yes, BUT, it is up to the private property owner themselves to do what is "morally right" as to their own determination of what is best for profit, etc. And, by continium, for the potential customers to do what they feel is morally right as to whether or not to enter the said business.
If most of the public feel that a place barring whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, indians, is practicing morally repugnant policy? Hell, then the place will very shortly have an "OUT OF BUSINESS" or "THIS PROPERTY FOR RENT" sign out front! LOL
Let free people -- owners or customers -- decide for themselves.
Chicagoland wrote:"I voted no just as fast as the one asked about black people. I acknowledge if its private its not subject to every public law but that doesn't make it morally right. We're the same nationality technically speaking. I'm kind of surprised that 56% voted yes.
Not sure where the nationality part is coming into the conversation. You are simply pointing out that many of us or U.S. citizens? Or are you saying the issue should revolve around nationality? So if the person is a foreigner, then it becomes acceptable? But if they are American, then hell no?
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 09-11-2011 at 12:05 PM..
I voted no just as fast as the one asked about black people. I acknowledge if its private its not subject to every public law but that doesn't make it morally right. We're the same nationality technically speaking. I'm kind of surprised that 56% voted yes.
Voting that it should be allowed is not voting that it's morally right.
I believe a privately-owned business should be able to put up such a sign, but I wouldn't and don't give my money to businesses that I know discriminate against customers on any basis. I don't give my money to businesses that discriminately subtly, let alone ones that discriminate as blatantly as the example mentioned in the title of this thread.
In the end, it doesn't have to do with black or white or nationality or anything else. It just has to do with the fact that discriminating against customers based on immutable traits is a poor business choice. If you give all your Ethiopian customers a hard time, you're going to lose that customer base. If you post a sign saying "no whites," you're obviously going to lose the white customer base. That's money not going into your pocket. If businesses want to be that stupid, they deserve to lose money as a result.
If you don't allow private businesses to put stupid policies like that in place, then businesses that do have discriminatory attitudes will do better because they're forced to serve the customer base they don't like--but as a result, make more money off it too. There's no direct consequence to their ignorant attitude. They'll survive longer and be around longer, and customers will have to put up with them longer.
At least if the natural consequence is allowed to happen, they'll suffer the detrimental effects and die out. And then those businesses won't be around and customers won't have to deal with businesses like that anymore. It seems to me that letting the natural process of selection happen is a much more powerful way to ensure businesses don't harbor discriminatory attitudes than trying to legislate a false sense of equality.
OK play your little game. Free speech can not and has never been 100% free and you know it. Let the racist put up all the signs they want to. At least when the working class and poor finally do revolt some targets are easily identified.
By the way, I love how free speech is a "little game" to you.
Yeah you're right, I did... I got a very good deal on what I wanted, and I proved my point... Did they get my money? Yeah, but not much of it, and to me it was worth it.
Once at a restaurant in my home town, I, the only non-Black person present was told by the manager, "I'm very sorry, but if you don't leave immediately, I am not responsible for your safety."
In this case, it wasn't restaurant policy, and I do believe the manager was sorry to have to say such a thing, but the de facto case was that I was not welcome by the patrons if not the restaurant itself.
More recently I was in a Mexican restaurant in my current city of residence with a group of Hispanic friends. It was the sort of restaurant where you order at a counter and then go back up to pick up your tray. We ordered our food to stay. I was the last in my party to be served and when I was, the counter person said over the loudspeaker, "One Gringo Special TO GO." (the food I ordered was not called the 'Gringo Special'.
Needless to say, I did not even bother getting the food. God knows what they may have put in it.
Personally, I think a business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, but I would not patronize a restaurant that practiced racial or ethnic exclusion. If a restaurant want to shoot itself in the foot and expose themselves as recist, let them. Better than people unknowingly eating the 'Gringo Special' :-)
Once at a restaurant in my home town, I, the only non-Black person present was told by the manager, "I'm very sorry, but if you don't leave immediately, I am not responsible for your safety."
In this case, it wasn't restaurant policy, and I do believe the manager was sorry to have to say such a thing, but the de facto case was that I was not welcome by the patrons if not the restaurant itself.
More recently I was in a Mexican restaurant in my current city of residence with a group of Hispanic friends. It was the sort of restaurant where you order at a counter and then go back up to pick up your tray. We ordered our food to stay. I was the last in my party to be served and when I was, the counter person said over the loudspeaker, "One Gringo Special TO GO." (the food I ordered was not called the 'Gringo Special'.
Needless to say, I did not even bother getting the food. God knows what they may have put in it.
Personally, I think a business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, but I would not patronize a restaurant that practiced racial or ethnic exclusion. If a restaurant want to shoot itself in the foot and expose themselves as recist, let them. Better than people unknowingly eating the 'Gringo Special' :-)
I hear what you're saying, and I would not patronize any such place myself. However, what if we're not talking about restaurants, but clothing stores, and the only clothing store in town that sells what you need/want refuses to do business with your race? According to some here on CD (this is not the first thread), they're just supposed to pick and go somewhere else. What if there is nowhere else to go w/o great inconvenience? I would rather the racist be forced to do business with me, even if s/he didn't want to.
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.
