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

[Yumyumsuppertime]

While I disagree with the restaurant owner's opinions, I think that somebody who owns a business or property should be able to decide who is and isn't allowed to set foot there.

Nope. All that matters is the manners and expectations of the customer and the ability to pay. You don't like fags or niggers, don't open a business to the public.

I really hate the suggestion that he should be sued. Lawsuit culture is fucking vile.

Really?

So would firebombing be better? How about assaulting or killing the owner?

Mass dine and dash?

[Ifreann]

While I disagree with the restaurant owner's opinions, I think that somebody who owns a business or property should be able to decide who is and isn't allowed to set foot there.

Nope. All that matters is the manners and expectations of the customer and the ability to pay. You don't like fags or niggers, don't open a business to the public.

I really hate the suggestion that he should be sued. Lawsuit culture is fucking vile.

Really?

So would firebombing be better? How about assaulting or killing the owner?

No doubt he wants criminal charges pressed instead of civil suits filed.

[Libertarian California]

Must be a quiet restaurant.

[Ifreann]

Must be a quiet restaurant.

What makes you think that?

[Libertarian California]

Must be a quiet restaurant.

What makes you think that?

Hehe...just a hunch?

[Cannot think of a name]

What makes you think that?

Hehe...just a hunch?

Oh, Casual Racism...allowing people to pretend to be offended at people taking offense for sixty years...

[Ifreann]

What makes you think that?

Hehe...just a hunch?

I feel like you're trying to imply something here and I'm really not seeing what.

[Sdaeriji]

Must be a quiet restaurant.

With the sound of all that incest and banjos? I doubt it.

[Xerographica]

Buy a block of land across the street?

Did you seriously just try and convince me that it's difficult and risky to start a business? Of course building isn't easy...which is why there are so many knockers. Which is why we need to commend and acknowledge the people who do manage to give any amount of people better options.

In total, it might cost the competitor more money than Gary's James's business is worth, just to draw even with him and take half his customers. And he'd still be in business, with his loyal customers who may accept worse food and service just to be able to frequent a place with no niggers, faggots or freaks.

Yes, builders are not people who have defeatist attitudes. Nor are they people who have an external locus of control.

Thus back to the my standing criticism of your wider philosophy, that you measure a person's moral strength (in fact, the worth of their morals) by how much money they have.

Imagine you're stranded on an island with 50 other people and 1 package of veggie seeds. Who do you give the seeds to? The person with the "best" morals or the person with the greenest thumb?

The market works because we can all vouch for how well somebody uses society's limited resources. It's up to you to decide exactly how much of your time/money you give to me. Before you kept wanting to add me to your ignore list...now you're giving me far more time than you give any other participant in this discussion. It's a decentralized, dynamic and effective vetting process.

Frankly, I think having a go at Gary James with a civil case might deliver more value all round. It doesn't require puttting him (or anyone else) out of business. He'll still have the option to stop discriminating on the basis of race, and he can still get away with some of the other discrimination he's accused of, because it's not illegal in Oklahoma.

The only way a civil case can possibly provide more value than the alternative uses of the required resources is if each and every person responsible for paying for those resources can...

1. weigh the different uses of their money
2. choose the most valuable uses (which requires sacrificing/foregoing the alternatives)

This is fundamentally important. It wouldn't be important if those resources could appear magically out of thin air when you snapped your fingers. But the fact of the matter is that each and every resource can be used in different ways...and some uses are more valuable than other uses. And because value is subjective...we can only accurately determine which uses provide the most value by allowing consumers to decide for themselves which uses provide them with the most value.

Basically, the only way a civil case can possibly provide more value (than the alternative uses of society's limited resources)...is if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go...and they chose to spend their taxes on the justice system rather than on cancer research, saving the rainforest, building more bridges, after school programs, national defense, unemployment benefits and so on.

Here's an analogy. Imagine you start a thread on this forum. Now, there are two ways to determine how much time should be allocated to your thread...

Method 1. The free market system. The members of this forum consider the alternative threads that they could spend their time in...and consider all the alternative uses of their time (of which there are countless) and they spend their time accordingly. The result of this market process will provide your thread with a total of x hours.

Method 2. The command economy system. You, with all your superior knowledge of people's preferences, interests and circumstances...simply decide for everybody exactly how much time they will allocate to your thread. The result of this conceited process will provide your thread with a total of y hours.

I am not at all confident that x and y will be the same. Yet, people throughout history have been confident that x and y will be close enough. And our society as a whole is generally confident that the two numbers will be close enough...which is why we allow 500 congresspeople to spend all our taxes.

Except, if you started a thread and suggested that we give method 2 a try...even if you recommended that we elect 100 "representatives"...people would tell you that you are insane. So there's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on.

I always object to analogies which are offered to make an argument. I don't mind them when offered to illustrate an argument, and I think you've made an argument sufficiently well (as to "value") that the easter egg analogy stands up as illustration.

You can't possibly expect me to reply to an analogy involving Martians and Easter Eggs though. It's just a bit of fun on your part, and I can sympathise with that.

Why would I spend my time trying to come up with easy to understand analogies if I thought you would simply flush them (and hence my time) down the toilet? Nobody wants to cast pearls before swine...so nobody intentionally does so. Everybody accidentally does so of course...we're all human...we're all fallible...we all make mistakes. Some more than others of course. Which is exactly why we need an effective vetting process.

Anyways, I posted it to my blog as well...so I've hedged my bets that the analogies will help other people understand the relevant concepts.

To put it as simply as possible...we really don't want to use a lot of society's limited resources to create a little value. And the only way to hedge our bets against this happening is to give each and every person the freedom to...

1. weigh the different uses of their limited resources
2. choose the most valuable use (and sacrifice the alternatives)

[Gauthier]

What makes you think that?

Hehe...just a hunch?

So quiet, yet managed to stay in business for 40+ years without being a mob front.

[New Catalonia]

Shut the bigot down. See how well he survives. Id also make it mandatory that he's banned from all restaurants for being white straight and rich.

[Olthar]

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, poor people. *nods*

Wait...No. That's a bad idea.

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, rich people. *nods*

[Vozt Yurkova]

While I disagree with the restaurant owner's opinions, I think that somebody who owns a business or property should be able to decide who is and isn't allowed to set foot there.

I really hate the suggestion that he should be sued. Lawsuit culture is fucking vile.

You hate the suggestion that he should be punished for breaking the law? What a pleasant worldview.

No, I hate the reinforcement of the idea that people should be sued for having bad opinions. It leads to a society where everybody is looking to make money every time they're offended.

As Ifreann ventured above, if something as trivial as this is going to be illegal, make it a criminal charge. At least then we won't devolve into a world of opportunistic tattletales.

[Cannot think of a name]

You hate the suggestion that he should be punished for breaking the law? What a pleasant worldview.

No, I hate the reinforcement of the idea that people should be sued for having bad opinions. It leads to a society where everybody is looking to make money every time they're offended.

He wouldn't be sued for his opinions but for his actions.

[Vozt Yurkova]

No, I hate the reinforcement of the idea that people should be sued for having bad opinions. It leads to a society where everybody is looking to make money every time they're offended.

He wouldn't be sued for his opinions but for his actions.

As I said, I disagree with the notion that a business owner shouldn't be able to designate their own clientele anyway. So by extension I don't believe his actions, however rooted in bigotry they may be, deserve punishment.

[Latinorium]

1: Do you think that James is justified in turning away "impurities"?
2: Should businesses be able to basically tell anyone who isn't with their specific social pocket to go fuck themselves?
3: Should this business specifically be shut down?
4: Do you agree with Rand Paul's statements about the free market, even though they've been proven wrong in this very article?

1:No
2:Yes
3:No
4:Yes

I don't agree with this guy, but it is his business so he should be able to do what he wants. If you don't want to eat there because he is a bigot then just don't eat there. If you are turned down service because you are not good enough for him then maybe you shouldn't want to eat there anyway.

[The Orson Empire]

Must be a quiet restaurant.

Ahh, racism.

[Ifreann]

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, poor people. *nods*

Wait...No. That's a bad idea.

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, rich people. *nods*

Sexy black, gay, rich people.

[Zombie Adolf Hitler]

I protest.
I'm middle class and I wasn't in. The rest of the requirements don't mean shit though.

[Olthar]

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, poor people. *nods*

Wait...No. That's a bad idea.

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, rich people. *nods*

Sexy black, gay, rich people.

That's sort of implied by the "gay" part.

[Ceannairceach]

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, poor people. *nods*

Wait...No. That's a bad idea.

I should open a restaurant and only allow black, gay, rich people. *nods*

Sexy black, gay, rich people.

Who are single. Because I'm not above gold digging from sexy, black, gay, rich people.

[Olthar]

Sexy black, gay, rich people.

Who are single. Because I'm not above gold digging from sexy, black, gay, rich people.

I wish I was hot enough to be a gold digger.

[Pretty Awesome Persons]

going to repeat what all the comments on wshh said

the guy in the wheelchair ignored all the discrimination until they discriminated against him

that being said, im all for businesses serving whoever they want
the money goes somewhere anyway

[Ceannairceach]

Who are single. Because I'm not above gold digging from sexy, black, gay, rich people.

I wish I was hot enough to be a gold digger.

You're hot for some rich, black, gay, single man!

Give me a couple of years and a reverse Michael Jackson, and I'll prove it

[Olthar]

I wish I was hot enough to be a gold digger.

You're hot for some rich, black, gay, single man!

Give me a couple of years and a reverse Michael Jackson, and I'll prove it

Why would a gay man want a woman?