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

[Mavorpen]

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.

Thank you for proving that he isn't associating with anyone.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

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

Private* service.

By dining at a restaurant you are joining a group of members, temporary or not, as the owners have a reasonable degree of choice over who enters their establishment. For example, I think it would be quite hard to enter a family restaurant wearing a thong.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

No...

It means that he can invite anyone he wants into his restaurant to assemble peaceably.

It does not mean that he gets to refuse to serve others based upon race.

Your interpretation of the Constitution would get you laughed out of a high school civics class.

[Mavorpen]

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

It's a private service.

It is, however a public accommodation.

[Mavorpen]

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

Private* service.

By dining at a restaurant you are joining a group of members, temporary or not, as the owners have a reasonable degree of choice over who enters their establishment. For example, I think it would be quite hard to enter a family restaurant wearing a thong.

Not according to any Supreme Court ruling since the CRA of 1964 was passed.

In fact, it's the opposite. "Groups" organized to pursue economic activity don't have freedom of association. They only are if they come together to advance beliefs or ideals (eg political groups). So no, restaurants do not have freedom of association in the manner in which you are speaking of.

[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.

No...

It means that he can invite anyone he wants into his restaurant to assemble peaceably.

That's basically confirming my point. Discretionary powers over membership go both ways.

It does not mean that he gets to refuse to serve others based upon race.

Yes, it does. Often it can be hard to tell whether someone is being refused service over race at all, which makes private anti-discrimination laws so dangerous to freedom.

Your interpretation of the Constitution would get you laughed out of a high school civics class.

Public school teachers are not exactly renowned for their objective standards.

[Mavorpen]

That's basically confirming my point. Discretionary powers over membership go both ways.

Wrong. This only applies if and only if he is assembling for specific purposes such as politics.

Yes, it does. Often it can be hard to tell whether someone is being refused service over race at all, which makes private anti-discrimination laws so dangerous to freedom.

That's why we have courts, you know.

Public school teachers are not exactly renowned for their objective standards.

The Supreme Court good enough for you?

[Lincolnocracy]

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?

1. OK, if it wasn't a slippery slope, if you were outright stating that Jim Crow is a possibility, then your earlier charge, "You've attacked imagery that is nonexistent" was baseless. You insulted me for no good reason then, because it turns out that Jim Crow is salient.

2. Nope, I don't have a source for the claim I never made. Are you willing to explicitly state what you think would happen if restaurants could discriminate?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No...

It means that he can invite anyone he wants into his restaurant to assemble peaceably.

That's basically confirming my point. Discretionary powers over membership go both ways.

It does not mean that he gets to refuse to serve others based upon race.

Yes, it does. Often it can be hard to tell whether someone is being refused service over race at all, which makes private anti-discrimination laws so dangerous to freedom.

Your interpretation of the Constitution would get you laughed out of a high school civics class.

Public school teachers are not exactly renowned for their objective standards.

"Patronage" does not equal "Membership". You're confusing two very different concepts. I may buy Girl Scout cookies, but that does not make me a member of the Girl Scouts.

Your second point makes no sense.

Your point regarding public school teachers is defamatory of an entire profession and utterly unnecessary.

[Mavorpen]

1. OK, if it wasn't a slippery slope, if you were outright stating that Jim Crow is a possibility, then your earlier charge, "You've attacked imagery that is nonexistent" was baseless.

Uh, no. Because before you brought it up, this imagery WAS nonexistent. Not a single person here had made the claim that Jim Crow will absolutely happen if the CRA disappeared.

Are you seriously whining that I'm commenting on something YOU brought up?

2. Nope, I don't have a source for the claim I never made.

Great, there's your answer.

[Lincolnocracy]

1. OK, if it wasn't a slippery slope, if you were outright stating that Jim Crow is a possibility, then your earlier charge, "You've attacked imagery that is nonexistent" was baseless.

Uh, no. Because before you brought it up, this imagery WAS nonexistent. Not a single person here had made the claim that Jim Crow will absolutely happen if the CRA disappeared.

I didn't make the claim that Jim Crow would "absolutely happen" either. I offered it as an example, it's not my fault that the other poster refused to clarify, and that you took his or her silence as my machination or aspersion.

Jim Crow was a pretty recent example of racism in extremis. Therefore it was, and is, a good beginning to a conversation of what someone thinks will happen if Civil Rights era legislation is repealed or amended. Again, it's not my fault that you chose to interpret as some kind of insult.

Are you seriously whining that I'm commenting on something YOU brought up?

I'm not "whining" that you're commenting on something I brought up, I'm asking you why a questioning example (ie: Jim Crow) has received more of your attention than any substantive particular, even though you began by criticizing my unwillingness to address the issues.

2. Nope, I don't have a source for the claim I never made.

Great, there's your answer.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You're supporting a law which among other things forbids restaurant discrimination, in a debate which has the theme of restaurant discrimination, and you're seriously trying to claim that my asking you about restaurant discrimination is related to a point you never made?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

"Patronage" does not equal "Membership". You're confusing two very different concepts. I may buy Girl Scout cookies, but that does not make me a member of the Girl Scouts.

It makes no difference in this case. If you buy Girl Scout cookies that automatically entails you the rights of a stakeholder of the Girl Scouts. This immediately grants the owner of an establishment power in determining who will or will not become a stakeholder in their establishment.

Your second point makes no sense.

My second point means that if an ethnic man is refused service based on their conduct or behaviour, they could so easily scream 'racism' that the continued credibility of that establishment under the law would be put into jeopardy.

Your point regarding public school teachers is defamatory of an entire profession and utterly unnecessary.

Well boo-frickin'-hoo, not my fault that most public educators have such a record of indoctrinating young people.

[Mavorpen]

It makes no difference in this case. If you buy Girl Scout cookies that automatically entails you the rights of a stakeholder of the Girl Scouts. This immediately grants the owner of an establishment power in determining who will or will not become a stakeholder in their establishment.

Now quote a Supreme Court case stating that this is relevant.

My second point means that if an ethnic man is refused service based on their conduct or behaviour, they could so easily scream 'racism' that the continued credibility of that establishment under the law would be put into jeopardy.

So you don't know about these things called "courts"?

[Mavorpen]

I didn't make the claim that Jim Crow would "absolutely happen" either. I offered it as an example, it's not my fault that the other poster refused to clarify, and that you took his or her silence as my machination or aspersion.

No, it absolutely is your fault for pretending your straw man is a legitimate argument.

Jim Crow was a pretty recent example of racism in extremis. Therefore it was, and is, a good beginning to a conversation of what someone thinks will happen if Civil Rights era legislation is repealed or amended.

No, it isn't. If it was being repealed to be replaced by a better law or repealed to be better, Jim Crow would have nothing to do with the discussion.

I'm not "whining" that you're commenting on something I brought up, I'm asking you why a questioning example (ie: Jim Crow) has received more of your attention than any substantive particular, even though you began by criticizing my unwillingness to address the issues.

Except, it hasn't. What has received my attention is your whining about me talking about something you brought up.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You're supporting a law which among other things forbids restaurant discrimination, in a debate which has the theme of restaurant discrimination, and you're seriously trying to claim that my asking you about restaurant discrimination is related to a point you never made?

Is this nonsense supposed to be English?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

"Patronage" does not equal "Membership". You're confusing two very different concepts. I may buy Girl Scout cookies, but that does not make me a member of the Girl Scouts.

It makes no difference in this case. If you buy Girl Scout cookies that automatically entails you the rights of a stakeholder of the Girl Scouts. This immediately grants the owner of an establishment power in determining who will or will not become a stakeholder in their establishment.

Your second point makes no sense.

My second point means that if an ethnic man is refused service based on their conduct or behaviour, they could so easily scream 'racism' that the continued credibility of that establishment under the law would be put into jeopardy.

Your point regarding public school teachers is defamatory of an entire profession and utterly unnecessary.

Well boo-frickin'-hoo, not my fault that most public educators have such a record of indoctrinating young people.

1) No, it does not. Not at all. Not in the slightest. The only thing that I gain from a transaction in which I buy a box of Thin Mints from a Girl Scout is the delicious Thin Mints.

2) I've seen this happen. Never successfully.

3) Ridiculous, but we're both getting off-topic with that.

[Gauthier]

1) No, it does not. Not at all. Not in the slightest. The only thing that I gain from a transaction in which I buy a box of Thin Mints from a Girl Scout is the delicious Thin Mints.

What's hilarious though, is a bunch of pro-lifers are calling for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies just because the GSoA posted a HuffPo link to an article called "Incredible Ladies of 2013" that included mention of Wendy Davis.

The Mothers Behind The Girl Scout Cookie Boycott

---

19 pages and still no response or commentaries from the an-caps.

[Lincolnocracy]

I didn't make the claim that Jim Crow would "absolutely happen" either. I offered it as an example, it's not my fault that the other poster refused to clarify, and that you took his or her silence as my machination or aspersion.

No, it absolutely is your fault for pretending your straw man is a legitimate argument.

Except it wasn't a straw man, it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone what they think the consequences of repealing or amending a law will be. The point was a genuine one. The fact that I chose Jim Crow as the example rather than something else reflects the fact that Jim Crow was on my mind. Why? Because another poster had previously described segregated Los Angeles and had mentioned Jim Crow. Ergo, Jim Crow was in my mind.

You have chosen to interpret my actions as a conspiracy, and now you refuse to talk about anything else, no matter how much I plead with you to address the actual issues.

Jim Crow was a pretty recent example of racism in extremis. Therefore it was, and is, a good beginning to a conversation of what someone thinks will happen if Civil Rights era legislation is repealed or amended.

No, it isn't. If it was being repealed to be replaced by a better law or repealed to be better, Jim Crow would have nothing to do with the discussion.

Except it's disingenuous for you to suggest this. Why? Because you said that it was "reasonable" to assume that the repeal of the Civil Rights Act would be a sign of discrimination returning. Furthermore, they clearly weren't imagining it being replaced by something better, because it occurred in the context of discussing whether restaurants should be allowed to discriminate or whether the status quo should be maintained.

I'm not "whining" that you're commenting on something I brought up, I'm asking you why a questioning example (ie: Jim Crow) has received more of your attention than any substantive particular, even though you began by criticizing my unwillingness to address the issues.

Except, it hasn't. What has received my attention is your whining about me talking about something you brought up.

OK, let's discuss the issues, except we can't because your present strategy is to insult me and criticize my choice of example, and then to avoid my every question about the issues.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You're supporting a law which among other things forbids restaurant discrimination, in a debate which has the theme of restaurant discrimination, and you're seriously trying to claim that my asking you about restaurant discrimination is related to a point you never made?

Is this nonsense supposed to be English?

Of course it is. Your strategy, to reiterate, is to insult as a way of avoiding discussing the topic. Why even debate this if you don't care about the issues? And if it isn't that you don't care, but is rather that you don't know, then why cover for that by insulting me in the first place, why not gracefully bow out instead?

So, I'll ask you yet again, what is your position on restaurant discrimination? What do you think would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How bad would it be?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

It makes no difference in this case. If you buy Girl Scout cookies that automatically entails you the rights of a stakeholder of the Girl Scouts. This immediately grants the owner of an establishment power in determining who will or will not become a stakeholder in their establishment.


My second point means that if an ethnic man is refused service based on their conduct or behaviour, they could so easily scream 'racism' that the continued credibility of that establishment under the law would be put into jeopardy.


Well boo-frickin'-hoo, not my fault that most public educators have such a record of indoctrinating young people.

1) No, it does not. Not at all. Not in the slightest. The only thing that I gain from a transaction in which I buy a box of Thin Mints from a Girl Scout is the delicious Thin Mints.

"Stakeholder (corporate), an accountant, group, organization, member or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions"

If you are a customer of Girl Scouts cookies, you are automatically affected by the actions of the Girl Scouts, as their decisions effect the price you pay and the manner that the transaction is done in.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1) No, it does not. Not at all. Not in the slightest. The only thing that I gain from a transaction in which I buy a box of Thin Mints from a Girl Scout is the delicious Thin Mints.

"Stakeholder (corporate), an accountant, group, organization, member or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions"

If you are a customer of Girl Scouts cookies, you are automatically affected by the actions of the Girl Scouts, as their decisions effect the price you pay and the manner that the transaction is done in.

Am I an accountant? No.

Am I a group? No.

Am I an organization? No.

Am I a member? No.

Am I a system? No, except by the most tortured definition of the word.

There's one word that I would have thought that they'd use if you were correct in your definition. One simple, straightforward word, the inclusion of which would cause me to have to rethink what you're saying.

That word is customer.

[Mavorpen]

Except it wasn't a straw man, it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone what they think the consequences of repealing or amending a law will be. The point was a genuine one. The fact that I chose Jim Crow as the example rather than something else reflects the fact that Jim Crow was on my mind. Why? Because another poster had previously described segregated Los Angeles and had mentioned Jim Crow. Ergo, Jim Crow was in my mind.

Except, this wasn't a matter of you simply asking a question. You asked them a question with the belief that they were making the argument. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted that your ENTIRE POINT was that Jim Crow wouldn't return.

Except it's disingenuous for you to suggest this. Why? Because you said that it was "reasonable" to assume that the repeal of the Civil Rights Act would be a sign of discrimination returning. Furthermore, they clearly weren't imagining it being replaced by something better, because it occurred in the context of discussing whether restaurants should be allowed to discriminate or whether the status quo should be maintained.

Who the fuck is "they"? You're talking about a fictional person. You already admitted that this person didn't actually say anything about Jim Crow returning.

Of course it is. Your strategy, to reiterate, is to insult as a way of avoiding discussing the topic.

Bullshit. You asked me why the Civil Rights Act is needed. I answered you.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

"Stakeholder (corporate), an accountant, group, organization, member or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions"

If you are a customer of Girl Scouts cookies, you are automatically affected by the actions of the Girl Scouts, as their decisions effect the price you pay and the manner that the transaction is done in.

Am I an accountant? No.

Am I a group? No.

Am I an organization? No.

Am I a member? No.

Am I a system? No, except by the most tortured definition of the word.

There's one word that I would have thought that they'd use if you were correct in your definition. One simple, straightforward word, the inclusion of which would cause me to have to rethink what you're saying.

That word is customer.

This is really basic high school business class stuff...

Company stakeholder mapping
A narrow mapping of a company's stakeholders might identify the following stakeholders:
Employees
Communities
Shareholders
Creditors
Investors
Government
Customers

[Spartan Philidelphia]

Whatever happened to business ethics?

[ALMF]

No, it absolutely is your fault for pretending your straw man is a legitimate argument.

Except it wasn't a straw man, it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone what they think the consequences of repealing or amending a law will be. The point was a genuine one. The fact that I chose Jim Crow as the example rather than something else reflects the fact that Jim Crow was on my mind. Why? Because another poster had previously described segregated Los Angeles and had mentioned Jim Crow. Ergo, Jim Crow was in my mind.

You have chosen to interpret my actions as a conspiracy, and now you refuse to talk about anything else, no matter how much I plead with you to address the actual issues.

Why do you have to ruin a perfectly good Whit Supremacy in the Name of Free-Markers with facts?

No, it isn't. If it was being repealed to be replaced by a better law or repealed to be better, Jim Crow would have nothing to do with the discussion.

Except it's disingenuous for you to suggest this. Why? Because you said that it was "reasonable" to assume that the repeal of the Civil Rights Act would be a sign of discrimination returning. Furthermore, they clearly weren't imagining it being replaced by something better, because it occurred in the context of discussing whether restaurants should be allowed to discriminate or whether the status quo should be maintained.

you dont have to go this far, althoue your justified in doing so. All you nead is a significant risk of discrimination, witch is obvious in this case

Except, it hasn't. What has received my attention is your whining about me talking about something you brought up.

OK, let's discuss the issues, except we can't because your present strategy is to insult me and criticize my choice of example, and then to avoid my every question about the issues.

Is this nonsense supposed to be English?

Of course it is. Your strategy, to reiterate, is to insult as a way of avoiding discussing the topic. Why even debate this if you don't care about the issues? And if it isn't that you don't care, but is rather that you don't know, then why cover for that by insulting me in the first place, why not gracefully bow out instead?

So, I'll ask you yet again, what is your position on restaurant discrimination? What do you think would happen if restaurants could discriminate? How bad would it be?

Do you really think he is going to answer: any answer wold destroy his argument or be patently unreasonable.

[Mavorpen]

Am I an accountant? No.

Am I a group? No.

Am I an organization? No.

Am I a member? No.

Am I a system? No, except by the most tortured definition of the word.

There's one word that I would have thought that they'd use if you were correct in your definition. One simple, straightforward word, the inclusion of which would cause me to have to rethink what you're saying.

That word is customer.

This is really basic high school business class stuff...

Company stakeholder mapping
A narrow mapping of a company's stakeholders might identify the following stakeholders:
Employees
Communities
Shareholders
Creditors
Investors
Government
Customers

I'll ask again: Please quote a Supreme Court case stating that this is relevant.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Am I an accountant? No.

Am I a group? No.

Am I an organization? No.

Am I a member? No.

Am I a system? No, except by the most tortured definition of the word.

There's one word that I would have thought that they'd use if you were correct in your definition. One simple, straightforward word, the inclusion of which would cause me to have to rethink what you're saying.

That word is customer.

This is really basic high school business class stuff...

Company stakeholder mapping
A narrow mapping of a company's stakeholders might identify the following stakeholders:
Employees
Communities
Shareholders
Creditors
Investors
Government
Customers

Could you actually link to that, please? And cut the shit with the facepalm emoticon. It isn't cute, it doesn't make your point, and it's utterly juvenile.