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

[Draica]

The Government does not have the authority to step into a private business and telling people how to run it..If they're not doing anything illegal.

What this business is doing is illegal.

What law does it violate? The CIvil Rights act of 1964?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And this is a clear example of the market failing to do its job. This is where the government steps in.

The Government does not have the authority to step into a private business and telling people how to run it..If they're not doing anything illegal.

Refusal to serve someone based on race is illegal. Even having that as a policy is illegal.

[Regnum Dominae]

What this business is doing is illegal.

What law does it violate? The CIvil Rights act of 1964?

Yes.

[Draica]

What law does it violate? The CIvil Rights act of 1964?

Yes.

Then send the SWAT into that place, raid it, arrest the businessman and shut it DOWN.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes.

Then send the SWAT into that place, raid it, arrest the businessman and shut it DOWN.

A major fine is more likely.

[Orham]

Yes.

Then send the SWAT into that place, raid it, arrest the businessman and shut it DOWN.

How about a court order to change the business' practices to align with the law and a possible fine? It's less dramatic, but it should have the same effect.

[AiliailiA]

please be sarscasm, please be sracasm, please be sarcasm...

I've read other posts of his. It's not.

I've read them too. It may be sarcasm ... very consistent sarcasm.

Thus, really only legitimate logic if not gratuitous.

[Luveria]

Yes.

Then send the SWAT into that place, raid it, arrest the businessman and shut it DOWN.

I would like that, but the state doesn't share my sentiments.

[Draica]

It's just funny for me to think about men in black armour bursting in the windows with semi-autos, making the employees freak out, making the businessman scream as they drag him across the floor and out to a helicopter to hurl him away.

[Luveria]

It's just funny for me to think about men in black armour bursting in the windows with semi-autos, making the employees freak out, making the businessman scream as they drag him across the floor and out to a helicopter to hurl him away.

A show of force like that would send out a message that the CIvil Rights Act of 1964 is taken seriously and will be enforced without mercy. I expect there would be a lot less violations afterwards.

[Rationallia]

If there is one thing I learnt at school that has to do with is, it's that everything involves maths. If we find what problem needs solving, we can rectify the equation and all live happily!

[Regnum Dominae]

If there is one thing I learnt at school that has to do with is, it's that everything involves maths. If we find what problem needs solving, we can rectify the equation and all live happily!

...what does that have to do with this?

[Orham]

I'm not saying it's okay to prohibit broad categories of people from your restaurant, because it's not.

What I'm saying is that the owner has the right to ban people from his store if they are detracting from the experience of the other customers by being loud (black people are often guilty of this in the south but so are others), smelly, obnoxious, raggedy in appearance, disrespectful, trouble-starters, etc.

People, this is what was posted after an edit. That is, Phoenixfox wrote something, saw a problem with it, went back to edit it, and was satisfied with this incarnation of the argument. You heard it here, southern black people in the US: apparently you're too loud to be allowed in restaurants. Quiet down and maybe the nice racist/homophobic/partisan plutocrat who owns this Oklahoma restaurant will give you a sandwich. That is, right after you stop being a Democrat (if you are one), open a business (if you don't have one), increase your income to the point where you don't need any form of state assistance (if that's not already the case), bleach your skin, and (if you're not heterosexual) become heterosexual.

...it might take a minute, but this is going to be a damn good sandwich. So hang in there. I hear it's on rye. Rye, people.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not saying it's okay to prohibit broad categories of people from your restaurant, because it's not.

What I'm saying is that the owner has the right to ban people from his store if they are detracting from the experience of the other customers by being loud (black people are often guilty of this in the south but so are others), smelly, obnoxious, raggedy in appearance, disrespectful, trouble-starters, etc.

People, this is what was posted after an edit. That is, Phoenixfox wrote something, saw a problem with it, went back to edit it, and was satisfied with this incarnation of the argument. You heard it here, southern black people in the US: apparently you're too loud to be allowed in restaurants. Quiet down and maybe the nice racist/homophobic/partisan plutocrat who owns this Oklahoma restaurant will give you a sandwich. That is, right after you stop being a Democrat (if you are one), open a business (if you don't have one), increase your income to the point where you don't need any form of state assistance (if that's not already the case), bleach your skin, and (if you're not heterosexual) become heterosexual.

...it might take a minute, but this is going to be a damn good sandwich. So hang in there. I hear it's on rye. Rye, people.

...with mustard? Because if there's no mustard, it's not worth switching parties.

[Orham]

It's just funny for me to think about men in black armour bursting in the windows with semi-autos, making the employees freak out, making the businessman scream as they drag him across the floor and out to a helicopter to hurl him away.

Aren't you the same person who just a moment ago was saying that the market would filter this sort of business out, then responded to the fact that the establishment has survived for nearly half a century with an apathetic "Then the market has decided"?

I mean, the second you found out that this man's business practices are in violation of the law your laissez faire rhetoric transformed into something I'd expect to see in a badly assembled, extremely cheesy political ad for the US Libertarian Party aimed at highlighting the "injustices" that regulations inflict upon small business owners. Are you sarcastically dismissing the point that this man has violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or have you sincerely abandoned a laissez faire approach and are now simply comically exaggerating the point that the state needs to intervene to modify this business' practices?

[Cannot think of a name]

And this is a clear example of the market failing to do its job. This is where the government steps in.

The Government does not have the authority to step into a private business and telling people how to run it..If they're not doing anything illegal.

The customers he gets arrive on roads built and maintained by the Government, the water that runs into his restaurant allowing him to function is managed by the Government, the little green pieces of paper that people give him for food have value because they are backed by the Government, when he is harmed by another party he relies on the government to compel payment or protect his restaurant, should his place be threatened by fire he relies on the Government to keep it from burning to the ground.

The Government has invested a great deal of resources so that he can have a business and prosper. If the Government is going to provide these resources they have to be for everyone. If you're going to use those resources to make a buck, you have to open your doors to all races, creeds, religions, etc. That's the deal. Take it or leave it. But don't bitch that it was all yours.

[Orham]

...with mustard? Because if there's no mustard, it's not worth switching parties.

There's a bottle of mustard on the table, if you like.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

...with mustard? Because if there's no mustard, it's not worth switching parties.

There's a bottle of mustard on the table, if you like.

No dice. I didn't get a job, bleach my skin, change my sexuality, register Republican, overcome my disability, and create my own small business just to have to apply my own damned mustard.

[Cannot think of a name]

There's a bottle of mustard on the table, if you like.

No dice. I didn't get a job, bleach my skin, change my sexuality, register Republican, overcome my disability, and create my own small business just to have to apply my own damned mustard.

Side note, I hate 'build your own burger' places. If I wanted to 'build my own burger' I'd go home. Grilling the meat is like maybe the easiest part of making the burger, dammit. I want to throw it back going, "Finish making my fucking burger. I don't want to use your shitty utensils to but some mayo that's been sitting in the wild for four hours on my bun, what am I paying you for?

[Orham]

No dice. I didn't get a job, bleach my skin, change my sexuality, register Republican, overcome my disability, and create my own small business just to have to apply my own damned mustard.

Fine. Go, then. Lazy bums who can't apply their own mustard don't deserve sandwiches made by the hands of a culinary master like Gary James. I mean, if he's been in business for 44 years despite being the most awful sort of bastard there is, his sandwiches must be nothing short of bacon-wrapped ambrosia pilfered from the cabinets of Zeus' kitchen itself.

...either that, or the market isn't some magical panacea after all, and there are enough people who don't give a shit about racist restaurant policies for market dynamics to prove ultimately unable to resolve regional racial tensions on their own. But how could that be true?

EDIT: Typo.

[Draica]

It's just funny for me to think about men in black armour bursting in the windows with semi-autos, making the employees freak out, making the businessman scream as they drag him across the floor and out to a helicopter to hurl him away.

Aren't you the same person who just a moment ago was saying that the market would filter this sort of business out, then responded to the fact that the establishment has survived for nearly half a century with an apathetic "Then the market has decided"?

I mean, the second you found out that this man's business practices are in violation of the law your laissez faire rhetoric transformed into something I'd expect to see in a badly assembled, extremely cheesy political ad for the US Libertarian Party aimed at highlighting the "injustices" that regulations inflict upon small business owners. Are you sarcastically dismissing the point that this man has violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or have you sincerely abandoned a laissez faire approach and are now simply comically exaggerating the point that the state needs to intervene to modify this business' practices?

Not being sarcastic nor "comically exagggerating" anything. If he broke a law he broke a law, period. Weather regulations like that are unfair are up for debate. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian FYI.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I'm not saying it's okay to prohibit broad categories of people from your restaurant, because it's not.

What I'm saying is that the owner has the right to ban people from his store if they are detracting from the experience of the other customers by being loud (black people are often guilty of this in the south but so are others), smelly, obnoxious, raggedy in appearance, disrespectful, trouble-starters, etc.

People, this is what was posted after an edit. That is, Phoenixfox wrote something, saw a problem with it, went back to edit it, and was satisfied with this incarnation of the argument. You heard it here, southern black people in the US: apparently you're too loud to be allowed in restaurants. Quiet down and maybe the nice racist/homophobic/partisan plutocrat who owns this Oklahoma restaurant will give you a sandwich. That is, right after you stop being a Democrat (if you are one), open a business (if you don't have one), increase your income to the point where you don't need any form of state assistance (if that's not already the case), bleach your skin, and (if you're not heterosexual) become heterosexual.

...it might take a minute, but this is going to be a damn good sandwich. So hang in there. I hear it's on rye. Rye, people.

Up in Buffalo, they say the roast beef is best served on Kimmelweck. It's pretty dang good, but I think the saltiness of the roll is a bit much.

Maybe I should've tried rye.

[Xerographica]

It's so bizarre. I don't think anybody has any type of obligation to feed and employ any amount of people. Yet, if somebody does decide to use society's limited resources to feed and employ some people...then all of a sudden they do have an obligation to feed and employ people.

"Nobody has any obligation to do any good...but if you do good...then you must do X amount of good"

Errrr...what?

It's really strange. Most of you ride your moral high horse and shake your fist and yell at the restaurant owner that he has an obligation to feed and employ minorities. I think he should shake his fist and yell the same thing to all of you. Evidently you seem genuinely concerned that minorities don't have enough restaurants to choose from in Oklahoma.

It's the same exact concept with liberals and sweatshops. Sweatshops are hardly perfect...but people choose to work there because it's better than their alternatives. Liberals don't take a risk by building comfortable factories...even though doing so would provide people with better options. Instead they prefer to tear/knock down people's best options. Knocking down people's best options doesn't create value...it destroys it.

Making prostitution illegal doesn't create value...it destroys it. If you truly want to create value...then you build businesses that give prostitutes better employment options.

If you are concerned that minorities in Oklahoma don't have enough food or employment...then there's nothing admirable or noble about forcing other people to dance to the beat of your moral drum. What would be admirable and noble is if you yourself took the risk of building a restaurant that provides minorities with better options.

Maybe it's not so easy to do? Perhaps? If it's not so easy to do then you should commend and congratulate anybody who does manage to feed/employ any amount of people. If it is easy to do then...instead of critiquing people who are doing it poorly...just mortgage your home and show them how it's supposed to be done.

We benefit as a society when new and better options are placed on the table. This is how value is created. This is how we make progress.

[Orham]

Not being sarcastic nor "comically exagggerating" anything. If he broke a law he broke a law, period. Weather regulations like that are unfair are up for debate. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian FYI.

I see. But the law doesn't call for a person's arrest for violations, it calls for other penalties. As for the last point...eh...the bit about the US Libertarian Party was just a joke about that political party, it had nothing to do with your own alignment.

[Orham]

It's so bizarre. I don't think anybody has any type of obligation to feed and employ any amount of people. Yet, if somebody does decide to use society's limited resources to feed and employ some people...then all of a sudden they do have an obligation to feed and employ people.

"Nobody has any obligation to do any good...but if you do good...then you must do X amount of good"

Errrr...what?

Exactly right. "Err...what?" is exactly what you should be saying, because what you just described has nothing to do with what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually does. Familiarize yourself with the legal definition of "public accommodation", think about what it means, and try again.

It's really strange. Most of you ride your moral high horse and shake your fist and yell at the restaurant owner that he has an obligation to feed and employ minorities. I think he should shake his fist and yell the same thing to all of you. Evidently you seem genuinely concerned that minorities don't have enough restaurants to choose from in Oklahoma.

...better add the legal definition of "protected class" to the list of concepts you need to familiarize yourself with. Seriously, this is pathetic.

It's the same exact concept with liberals and sweatshops. Sweatshops are hardly perfect...but people choose to work there because it's better than their alternatives. Liberals don't take a risk by building comfortable factories...even though doing so would provide people with better options. Instead they prefer to tear/knock down people's best options. Knocking down people's best options doesn't create value...it destroys it.

Making prostitution illegal doesn't create value...it destroys it. If you truly want to create value...then you build businesses that give prostitutes better employment options.

If you are concerned that minorities in Oklahoma don't have enough food or employment...then there's nothing admirable or noble about forcing other people to dance to the beat of your moral drum. What would be admirable and noble is if you yourself took the risk of building a restaurant that provides minorities with better options.

Maybe it's not so easy to do? Perhaps? If it's not so easy to do then you should commend and congratulate anybody who does manage to feed/employ any amount of people. If it is easy to do then...instead of critiquing people who are doing it poorly...just mortgage your home and show them how it's supposed to be done.

We benefit as a society when new and better options are placed on the table. This is how value is created. This is how we make progress.

You are entirely unprepared for this discussion, and are proposing an alternative to a status quo which doesn't actually exist.