Oklahoma Restaurant: Not white, straight & rich? Screw you.

[Mavorpen]

Let's not forget economy, business rights, libertarians, and wheelchairs.

Now he just needs to out himself as working for the NSA.

While wearing a #FreeBeiber t-shirt.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

It is a relevant distinction, because someone could argue that it does exist as a moral right, whereas they couldn't argue that it exists as a legal right. If you're going to just say "that right does not exist, legal or otherwise", be prepared to defend that statement with something other than the law.

As soon as I'm given a compelling reason to even to begin to entertain that right, but until such a time (which has not arrived), I can rest on the notion that this is a legally settled issue, that the discussion on the existence of this right has been decided properly.

I think the main point of this thread is to debate whether or not this right exists, though. The argument seems to be that forcing someone to sell something of theirs without their consent (without good reason) is morally wrong, which is (I believe) is true to a certain extent. By extension, you could say that the right to not be forced to sell something without good reason exists in some capacity. The real question is whether or not this "right" of sorts takes precedence over the right to be served by a business, or whether or not the right to be served by a business counts as a "good reason".

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Now he just needs to out himself as working for the NSA.

While wearing a #FreeBeiber t-shirt.

Too far.

[Lincolnocracy]

This is a compelling description, and I appreciate the insight that it represents; this is a perspective that I may not have heard otherwise.

Unfortunately, I would still have to insist that this particular case is a single restaurant, and is neither writ large nor poised to be writ large.

Well, sure. In this particular case, it is a single restaurant. However, if these protections are not consistently enforced, then they will be ignored by others as well. I wish that I could say otherwise, that humanity has learned its lesson, but I really don't think so. This guy has managed to fly under the radar for decades. Now that he's getting some publicity, he may have to change his ways, or face legal action. If it goes unanswered by the law, then we run a huge risk of a creeping effect where other restaurants start indulging in the same sort of discrimination, and we end up back where we started decades ago.

I think that what you're saying is a genuine possibility. It is possible that, without consistent enforcement, America will have a kind of racist relapse. I cannot deny that this could be true.

However, my interpretation is slightly different. I believe, and feel free to disagree, that the reason he has gone unnoticed is because he's a dinosaur. People haven't heard of him either because (a) he serves a small, ignorant clientele, which are their own dying circle, or (b) most of the time he keeps his racism hidden (because most of his clientele would disapprove). I just think that America has changed in a-lot of ways.

However, I can appreciate that there is no absolute certainty, and that your concerns are coming from a sincere place.

Is your claim that things now are as bad as they were in the 20th century, or that without the policing of restaurants, we would swiftly return to a state as bad as the 20th century?

My argument is that this restaurant exists in defiance of the insistence that it would not. Is that in dispute? Are you arguing that this restaurant doesn't exist?

Whose insistence?

Additionally, when it comes to restaurants, that's part of my point: Jim Crow isn't going to return soon, not even if some restaurants are racist. Ergo, the Civil Rights era imagery is somewhat inappropriate.

Fantastic! You've attacked imagery that is nonexistent and not a single person has presented. Would you like a cookie?

Or, would you prefer to actually debate points people have ACTUALLY made?

We'll have to agree to disagree vis-a-vis imagery. Irrespective, which specific points would you like me to address?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

The article in the OP reads quite like a blog.

Not saying it isn't factually accurate, but it's more bloggy than most actual blogs I've read. Is the caps lock and italics that necessary in a news publication?

Reading the article on the site itself feels like being whacked in the face by a hammer with the words "SOCIAL JUSTICE!" written on it, or Britta from Community mixed with a teenage girl stereotype.

"What an amazing surprise it is to find out that this guy is a REPUBLICAN? Wow, who knew? That is so unexpected. What a Shocker!?"

Like, ohmygawd!

[Mavorpen]

We'll have to agree to disagree vis-a-vis imagery. Irrespective, which specific points would you like me to address?

Wait, why? Not a single person has made the claim that Jim Crow would come back if the Civil Rights Act disappeared.

Though, it isn't preposterous to claim that if the citizens of the country voted for people who actually would do such a thing, Jim Crow returning is a possibility. It certainly is reasonable to assume that a population who allows discrimination against racial minorities would also allow laws that explicitly do so.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.

Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

I'm not really understanding this.

Restaurant only wants to allow certain types of people (namely physically able, white, rich, straight people) in, a privately owned restaurant, btw.
In my opinion (that is, the opinion of a blind bisexual pagan), that law stopping him doing that is crazy. It's his job to say who walks through his door, not the governments.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I'm not really understanding this.

Restaurant only wants to allow certain types of people (namely physically able, white, rich, straight people) in, a privately owned restaurant, btw.
In my opinion (that is, the opinion of a blind bisexual pagan), that law stopping him doing that is crazy. It's his job to say who walks through his door, not the governments.

Inb4 "BUT MUH REGULATION!!!!"

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not really understanding this.

Restaurant only wants to allow certain types of people (namely physically able, white, rich, straight people) in, a privately owned restaurant, btw.
In my opinion (that is, the opinion of a blind bisexual pagan), that law stopping him doing that is crazy. It's his job to say who walks through his door, not the governments.

Inb4 "BUT MUH REGULATION!!!!"

People with your belief system have made many thoughtful contributions to this discussion. This isn't one of them. If you have nothing to offer but spam, please offer nothing.

[Lincolnocracy]

We'll have to agree to disagree vis-a-vis imagery. Irrespective, which specific points would you like me to address?

Wait, why? Not a single person has made the claim that Jim Crow would come back if the Civil Rights Act disappeared.

Though, it isn't preposterous to claim that if the citizens of the country voted for people who actually would do such a thing, Jim Crow returning is a possibility. It certainly is reasonable to assume that a population who allows discrimination against racial minorities would also allow laws that explicitly do so.

Lots of people have invoked a slippery slope. Whether that slippery slope leads to Jim Crow, or something less bad, my point was that if you're going to argue that racist discrimination would be a major problem sans legislation, then you should specify to what extent (in approximate terms) it will be a major problem. I was offering an example, ie: Jim Crow, expecting a clarifying response.

Perhaps. Or parts of it could be amended because it isn't needed anymore. It's both reasonable to assume that a population which repeals (some) discrimination law is (a) discriminatory, and (b) post-discriminatory. It's a really contingent thing.

[Bezombia]

Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.

Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.

No it isn't. There's nothing in the first amendment that says "y'all can go fuck over minorities if ya' want".

[Mavorpen]

Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.

Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.

I'm pretty sure the bakery you're talking about is still open. You could actually source this claim.

[Zarodia]

1. Sure. I'd personally "discriminate" towards some different groups than him, but hey, whatever floats his goat.
2. Yep, it's his restaurant, surviving on his money, not mine. If someone else wants to go make a restaurant or something and only allow people in if they have an ethnic minority in their party, then as long as they're not receiving public funding I'd tell them to go for it too.
3. Nope.
4. Nope.

This seems a bit sketchy though, and not only because of the obvious bias of the article itself, not to mention the source. If this has been going on for as long as claimed, why the hell has no one bitched before now? Even in the most stereotypical backwoods republican stronghold there's going to be at least one person who needs a reason to be angry, and with the internet as a platform for their bitching I find it really hard to believe that no one would've said anything about this years ago.

[Mavorpen]

Lots of people have invoked a slippery slope.

Except, that isn't a slippery slope. Not even close.

Perhaps. Or parts of it could be amended because it isn't needed anymore.

No, it's still needed.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.

Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.

No, it isn't.

He has the right to speak out against black people all he wants.

He has no inherent right under the Constitution to not provide them with the basic services he is willing to provide others if he is only refusing said service based upon race.

[Lincolnocracy]

Lots of people have invoked a slippery slope.

Except, that isn't a slippery slope. Not even close.

Perhaps. Or parts of it could be amended because it isn't needed anymore.

No, it's still needed.

1. If it isn't a slippery slope, then you agree with me; Jim Crow isn't returning. There's no problem.

2. So, what bad things would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How slippery is your slope?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.

Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.

No it isn't. There's nothing in the first amendment that says "y'all can go fuck over minorities if ya' want".

Nobody seems to be being actually harmed by this restaurant. The market actually does happen to get cleared of discriminatory establishments once in a while, a prime example being last year when a wedding cake bakery was forced to close down by gay rights groups because it wouldn't serve a lesbian couple.

Discrimination sucks, but we don't need the government breathing down our backs to force it to stop. Legislating against establishments like this is abridging the First Amendment.

No, it isn't.

He has the right to speak out against black people all he wants.

He has no inherent right under the Constitution to not provide them with the basic services he is willing to provide others if he is only refusing said service based upon race.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others. Utilising coercion against a potential customer is fucking them over; refusing a service out of many to them is not. It's an assholean thing to do, but it's not like the owner's putting a gun to their head.

[Mavorpen]

1. If it isn't a slippery slope, then you agree with me; Jim Crow isn't returning. There's no problem.

Did you read my post? Jim Crow returning after the CRA of 1964 being repealed isn't a slippery slope. I already explained that if a society's population is racist enough to repeal the law, then there's plenty reason to assume that there is a possibility of law similar to Jim Crow returning.

2. So, what bad things would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How slippery is your slope?

This has nothing to do with my post.

[Mavorpen]

That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others.

He isn't assembling or associating with anyone. You might want to learn what those words actually mean.

[Lincolnocracy]

1. If it isn't a slippery slope, then you agree with me; Jim Crow isn't returning. There's no problem.

Did you read my post? Jim Crow returning after the CRA of 1964 being repealed isn't a slippery slope. I already explained that if a society's population is racist enough to repeal the law, then there's plenty reason to assume that there is a possibility of law similar to Jim Crow returning.

2. So, what bad things would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How slippery is your slope?

This has nothing to do with my post.

1. No comment on "1." beyond the emboldening and italicizing of your statement.

2. Yes it does. It absolutely does. Insofar as you're defending a piece of legislation, you're presumably defending the effects of that legislation. You're claiming that the law is still needed, why is it still needed? What would happen otherwise? I would think that the consequences of a law are relevant to a discussion of that law, up to and including the counterfactual of its amendment (when that is what your fellow debater is proposing).

[Bezombia]

No it isn't. There's nothing in the first amendment that says "y'all can go fuck over minorities if ya' want".

No, it isn't.

He has the right to speak out against black people all he wants.

He has no inherent right under the Constitution to not provide them with the basic services he is willing to provide others if he is only refusing said service based upon race.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others. Utilising coercion against a potential customer is fucking them over; refusing a service out of many to them is not. It's an assholean thing to do, but it's not like the owner's putting a gun to their head.

Freedom of associating means that you can join a political activist party, not that you can hold a "Whites Only" night club.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

That basically guarantees freedom of association and assembly. This is violated if the state dictates who can and cannot exchange services with an establishment, meaning that the owner is not free to peacefully assemble with others. Utilising coercion against a potential customer is fucking them over; refusing a service out of many to them is not. It's an assholean thing to do, but it's not like the owner's putting a gun to their head.

Freedom of associating means that you can join a political activist party, not that you can hold a "Whites Only" night club.

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.

[Bezombia]

Freedom of associating means that you can join a political activist party, not that you can hold a "Whites Only" night club.

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.

A restaurant is not a group, it's a public service.

[Mavorpen]

Did you read my post? Jim Crow returning after the CRA of 1964 being repealed isn't a slippery slope. I already explained that if a society's population is racist enough to repeal the law, then there's plenty reason to assume that there is a possibility of law similar to Jim Crow returning.

This has nothing to do with my post.

1. No comment on "1." beyond the emboldening and italicizing of your statement.

Please learn what a slippery slope is. "A could lead to B" isn't a slippery slope in of itself.

2. You're claiming that the law is still needed, why is it still needed? What would happen otherwise?

Do you have a source that there is no discrimination against protected classes?