South Carolina restaurant kicks blacks out

[Distruzio]

Actually, it's not. There's a high chance it was, but it's not clear.

Even if it wasn't race related, it could be considered treating customers improperly wrongly asking a group of twenty-five to leave over one baseless complaint. Yet I'm being told I'm a bleeding heart liberal screaming outrage over racism, because I call into question how a group of customers may have been mistreated.

Giving a damn about mistreatment is bleeding heart liberalism? Color me a liberal then. Although I don't know that this was race related and insist the owner had every right to his decision whether race related or not, I have to admit that it causes me to raise an eyebrow. 25 people and a greater amount of profit to be earned turned away by a single customer? I think that, were I the owner, the choice'd be clear.

Sit the 25, kick the 1 out, and hit the strip club afterwards.

[Luveria]

Even if it wasn't race related, it could be considered treating customers improperly wrongly asking a group of twenty-five to leave over one baseless complaint. Yet I'm being told I'm a bleeding heart liberal screaming outrage over racism, because I call into question how a group of customers may have been mistreated.

Giving a damn about mistreatment is bleeding heart liberalism? Color me a liberal then. Although I don't know that this was race related and insist the owner had every right to his decision whether race related or not, I have to admit that it causes me to raise an eyebrow. 25 people and a greater amount of profit to be earned turned away by a single customer? I think that, were I the owner, the choice'd be clear.

Sit the 25, kick the 1 out, and hit the strip club afterwards.

Maybe that one customer is a really big spender. *nods*

[Herskerstad]

Waited two hours? That's shit service times a hundred.

Anyhow, if anything, sounds more like a local chain manager gone awry times ten. I would not be surprised if the lawsuit in question will target the individual manager who did not prevent this situation 'or even directly caused it' rather than the food chain which seems to have it's service policy in line with the law.

[Leningrad Union]

I honestly don't get what the big deal is. No one would care if they were white.

[Condunum]

they are bound by law not to descriminate based on race or sex.

The problem I have with such legislation, is that it takes power away from the entrepreneur and forces him to abide by things which he may not agree with, and it begins to head down the slipper slope, where the state dictates to the market, how, who and what they should provide.

If you don't intend to allow anyone to buy from your store you're a shitty entrepreneur to begin with and you don't deserve to succeed.

[Luveria]

The problem I have with such legislation, is that it takes power away from the entrepreneur and forces him to abide by things which he may not agree with, and it begins to head down the slipper slope, where the state dictates to the market, how, who and what they should provide.

If you don't intend to allow anyone to buy from your store you're a shitty entrepreneur to begin with and you don't deserve to succeed.

"Jackie, I refuse to sell you a burger. You're not straight enough to eat at my restaurant. Away with you!"

[Condunum]

If you don't intend to allow anyone to buy from your store you're a shitty entrepreneur to begin with and you don't deserve to succeed.

"Jackie, I refuse to sell you a burger. You're not straight enough to eat at my restaurant. Away with you!"

"FINE! I'll take my hard earned cash over to that gay bar instead and spend it there!"

[Geilinor]

Yes, the restaurant should be sued under the Civil Rights Act. This is what the law was written for.

[Geilinor]

A restaurant is a public accommodation that may be engaging in interstate commerce, so they are covered under the Civil Rights Act.

[Geilinor]

No, they're entirely liable. Management on all levels is responsible for the actions of their direct underlings. If management fucks up in a store, their boss is responsible for fixing the issue after removing the person.

I don't think suing is the right thing to do.

The black patrons certainly could sue, however.

[Distruzio]

Giving a damn about mistreatment is bleeding heart liberalism? Color me a liberal then. Although I don't know that this was race related and insist the owner had every right to his decision whether race related or not, I have to admit that it causes me to raise an eyebrow. 25 people and a greater amount of profit to be earned turned away by a single customer? I think that, were I the owner, the choice'd be clear.

Sit the 25, kick the 1 out, and hit the strip club afterwards.

Maybe that one customer is a really big spender. *nods*

Well.... I would've been if I'd sat the 25.... or are you not talking about my trip to "da club".

[Katzistanza]

The problem I have with such legislation, is that it takes power away from the entrepreneur and forces him to abide by things which he may not agree with, and it begins to head down the slipper slope, where the state dictates to the market, how, who and what they should provide.

No it doesn't, it's the way every successful capitalist society is run.

[Luveria]

"Jackie, I refuse to sell you a burger. You're not straight enough to eat at my restaurant. Away with you!"

"FINE! I'll take my hard earned cash over to that gay bar instead and spend it there!"

"Pshh, I don't need your money! I'm in this business to selectively provide service to people based on my discriminative views. I'm not doing this for the profit."

Yes, the restaurant should be sued under the Civil Rights Act. This is what the law was written for.

Only if it was racism. At best, this looks like it was a situation that was handled very poorly by the manager even if it wasn't racism. It's possible the complaining customer was racially motivated and the manager was unaware of it. It's possible the complaining customer was making an issue out of nothing and the manager took the complaint at face value. Either way, it was handled poorly if there's this much publicity after it.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Except that's not what the law says.

ever consider the possibility that it is a fundamentally unjust law?

It's not.

"Property rights" are an authoritarian collectivist myth. They are merely a method by which the haves oppress and dominate the have-nots.

They have no place in a free society. You would know this if you didn't yourself hate freedom so much.

[Geilinor]

ever consider the possibility that it is a fundamentally unjust law?

It's not.

"Property rights" are an authoritarian collectivist myth. They are merely a method by which the haves oppress and dominate the have-nots.

They have no place in a free society. You would know this if you didn't yourself hate freedom so much.

Bluth, you're always sarcastically funny.

[New England and The Maritimes]

It's not.

"Property rights" are an authoritarian collectivist myth. They are merely a method by which the haves oppress and dominate the have-nots.

They have no place in a free society. You would know this if you didn't yourself hate freedom so much.

Bluth, you're always sarcastically funny.

He's correct, though. "Property" is a tool of oppression.

[Fartsniffage]

Was the person who made the complaint a regular? How many were in their group?

>a group of twenty-five regulars
>one person complains
>the twenty-five regulars are politely told to GTFO

You don't see a situation that may have been handled poorly by the manager?

I think that the situation was handled poorly. I don't see it as a case of "OMG racism!!!!!1!!" without more information.

You need to remember, the manager didn't kick the group out at the request of the complainer, they went to re-seat the group.

[New England and The Maritimes]

>a group of twenty-five regulars
>one person complains
>the twenty-five regulars are politely told to GTFO

You don't see a situation that may have been handled poorly by the manager?

I think that the situation was handled poorly. I don't see it as a case of "OMG racism!!!!!1!!" without more information.

You need to remember, the manager didn't kick the group out at the request of the complainer, they went to re-seat the group.

"They didn't want her off the bus at the request of the white man, they just wanted her to go to the nigger section in back."

[Fartsniffage]

Bluth, you're always sarcastically funny.

He's correct, though. "Property" is a tool of oppression.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[Gunstan]

Am I the only person who when I heard the name of the restraunt was named Wild Wings? 25 black people, Wild wings?

I am assuming Wild Wings is a Chicken restraunt.

[Fartsniffage]

I think that the situation was handled poorly. I don't see it as a case of "OMG racism!!!!!1!!" without more information.

You need to remember, the manager didn't kick the group out at the request of the complainer, they went to re-seat the group.

"They didn't want her off the bus at the request of the white man, they just wanted her to go to the nigger section in back."

Why did the complainer say they felt threatened?

[Geilinor]

"They didn't want her off the bus at the request of the white man, they just wanted her to go to the nigger section in back."

Why did the complainer say they felt threatened?

No good reason at all.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Bluth, you're always sarcastically funny.

He's correct, though. "Property" is a tool of oppression.

"This is my toothbrush!"
"Oppressor! Fascist! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see!"

[Fartsniffage]

Why did the complainer say they felt threatened?

No good reason at all.

You know that? Do you have a source? Or is it an assumption?

[Blasveck]

"They didn't want her off the bus at the request of the white man, they just wanted her to go to the nigger section in back."

Why did the complainer say they felt threatened?

"I don't like the sight of dem niggers."

In reality, we don't know, AFAIK.