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.
The question remains is he obligated under the law to do so in this case? What law whould that be?
We live in a Fascist society and the are a number of laws that would side with the customer over the business owner so long as the business owner was in compliance with all laws applying to his business.
For example, if the cop had no shoes on, he would have to leave per regulations of the board of health. But if the cop is not violating any law while in the shop, then since the shop is open to the public, then the shopowner is obligated to serve him. If this were a private club, then the cop would have to leave.
The same laws which enable businesses to trespass people off their property--if you simply must have some sort of law. I don't support laws though, and it is merely something that should be done at the shop's request. They ask you to leave, then leave.
Rand Paul would approve of it, wouldn't he? Not only is the coffee shop exercising their right as a private business to refuse service to someone, police officers aren't a protected class.
I have nothing against police officers. I'm just taking the pro-business, pro-privacy and libertarian point of view.
Rand Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. His view is not the LP pov. The LP would see the Civil Rights Act as within the proper framework of gov't:
"The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."
2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
The same laws which enable businesses to trespass people off their property--if you simply must have some sort of law. I don't support laws though, and it is merely something that should be done at the shop's request. They ask you to leave, then leave.
You fail to point out, since there are laws, the customer must be violating one of these laws for the shopkeeper to have the right to throw him out. When a shopkeep opens his goods and services to the public, the "laws" require him to open to all of the public, not just some of the public. Otherwise he could simply be a private club and then could only serve who he picks and choses to serve.. B/c you disagree with laws, doesn't make the null and void in reality.
Obviously, then, stores do not have the right to have people issued trespass warnings. Bars cannot refuse service. Restaraunts cannot require a dress code for service--because that would be discriminatory.
Sorry, discrimination happens, and is totally acceptable. I don't care if a business wants to discriminate against me, because I can go elsewhere.
Some bars under the dram shops laws are required not to serve obvious drunken patrons. This protects the public under their right to life since the drunken patron after having more liquor may go out and drive down the street and kill people. The innocent people have their right to life and it over rides the drunken patrons right to another drink.
You call this discrimination but it is also the law grounded in the protection of the rights for all. We have a right to "life" and if a restaurant serves people without shoes on, that shoeless person could transmit some disease in that restaurant which we could contract from them. Therefore, the restaurant puts up a sign "no shoes no service" and it is protected under the law which falls under the general welfare clause of the Constitution b/c the public has the right to "life", and since their life maybe threatened by contaminated food in a restaurant from shoeless customers, this over rides the customer's preference for no shoes..
I see that you don't advocate for any laws but that isn't reality here. Maybe in Somalia, but not here under the US Constitution.
when speaking of dress codes, I was more or less addressing restaurants that demand its male customers wear ties. Where wearing jeans and a T-shirt won't get you in the door.
Rand Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. His view is not the LP pov. The LP would see the Civil Rights Act as within the proper framework of gov't:
"The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."
Wow, I guess I can't call myself a Libertarian anymore, obviously the libertarians are a bunch of sell-outs who obviously have no idea what liberty actually means. They should rename themselves the neo-liberals to more accurately describe themselves.
This is what Milton Friedman, someone who believes in liberty above all else, has to say on 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."
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That excerpt has absolutely nothing to do with the unconstitutional civil rights act. But I understand it would be political suicide for any party to oppose in principal the civil rights act, even if you abhor racism. But by opposing the civil rights act as beyond the scope of the federal government, you will be called the pro-racism party. Similar to someone who believes that governments should not restrict gay unions might be called pro-gay, or someone who is pro-choice might be called pro-abortion or pro-murder of innoncent babies. It is a distortion of reality to feed the oppositions political agenda.
You should stand for liberty or take liberty completely out of your fraudulent name. Next thing you know you'll be saying it is a basic human right to get government medical care(and you know where that leads).
You people sicken me.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-07-2010 at 01:53 PM..
You fail to point out, since there are laws, the customer must be violating one of these laws for the shopkeeper to have the right to throw him out. When a shopkeep opens his goods and services to the public, the "laws" require him to open to all of the public, not just some of the public. Otherwise he could simply be a private club and then could only serve who he picks and choses to serve.. B/c you disagree with laws, doesn't make the null and void in reality.
If you can choose not to patronize a business, the business can choose not to serve you. It goes both ways.
Oh isn't this nice, someone should be able to put a 1 cent piece of paper, which says, "We withhold the right to refuse service to anyone." And you MORONS believe that should be ok. Up until I brought up the fact, it was illegal under the law, most of the people who liked the idea, backed it. Because it was being used against a POLICE OFFICER. The MOMENT I brought up, if it were legal, you could bar blacks, hispanics, Jews, and women, with the same 1 cent piece of paper, where did everyone go? Everyone except the cop hater Tkramer. Where is everyone else? Where is the rest of the liberal/socialists, who say they are progressives and its "Ok" to ban someone, because they have a piece of paper? Where are all the people who said I am an idiot, because I am a police officer and its "trespassing" if I still stay in the coffee shop? Oh, I should know that? Where are you people? GONE. Not here, because you are nieve and ignorant, and have NO CLUE what the law actually is. You run your mouths on a "gut instinct." But still do not know what the LAW says.
I'm sick of all you dime store criminal law attorneys. You see something on a TV program and think that is the law. Your brother's cousin, twice removed, told you that is the law. You read something. You saw something. YOU DON'T KNOW JACK. And, that is the problem with police work and the general public. You people THINK you know what I do. You have no clue. You have no clue about case law, politics, et al which controls police work. "Officer. This is what I want. I want it, so do it." Its not that simple. The LAW controls what I can and CANNOT do. PERIOD. YOU, as the general public decides what I can and cannot do as a police officer. The simple fact of the matter? A piece of paper means NOTHING. Its worthless.
And, morever, 99% of you people are stupid, ignorant, and nieve, when it comes to this. Live with it.
Because most laws aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Especially when those who are supposed to enforce it run around breaking it.
You say you know the law? I was asked to leave a home where I was living by an ex-girlfriend, because she wanted to break up with me and wanted me gone. I've pointed that out, and people would come out to say that the law does not permit her to do so. But the police still made me leave...even if a judge would not have done so. What the law actually is, in theory, does not matter. What matters is what is put into practice. We could make a law against being homeless, but it doesn't stop homelessness.
No. They didn't MAKE you leave. You left on your own accord. The police had no legal right to make you leave. None, whatsoever.
Happens everyday. There is a transient in front of my business. I don't want them there. Legally, I CANNOT make them leave. In fact, if I did, it would be a violation of THEIR rights. I would be guilty of violating their rights under the color of authority.
For those old enough to remember the Rodney King issue. Those officers WERE NOT convicted of beating the hell out of Rodney King. They were convited, under federal law, of violating his rights under the color of authority (read police officer). If I tell you, as a transient, homeless, or black person TO LEAVE a public place, and you refuse to do, and I beat your a$$; I am guilty of violating your rights, under the color of authority. A federal crime.
[ mod cut ] You cannot post a piece of paper and expect the police to enforce it. The women's sufferage movement, Dr Martin Luther King, and many others have fought against you. You are wrong. Admit it and move on. You have to have more to keep someone out of a "public" business. If not, I could keep any person I don't like out of my 7-11.
[ mod cut ]
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-12-2010 at 08:18 PM..
Reason: personal attacks
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.
