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

[Lincolnocracy]

I'm not really sure what that means (you're welcome to specify), but I'll try.



Not once have I claimed that forcing someone to sell something to you at market value is the most egregious kind of coercion or theft or whatever. The entitlement that you possess is to the private property of others if you meet certain conditions unrelated to their consent.

And why should it be a right to discriminate based upon race?

It's not a right to discriminate, although the right to discriminate is nested within the right. Instead, it's a right not to sell your stuff if you don't want to, except in cases of strict need.

[Slorch]

The racisms of Japan and Brazil, like their sides on the planet, are actually near to inverses of each other.

Brazilian racism is xenocentered, colonized, mutt dog-inferiority complex, that sees 50-95% of its own population as the strangers to be avoided and segregated at any cost. The people doing them don't see them as something that they're part of and something they would see as proper people, but rather, just "untouchables".

Japanese racism is supremacistic, xenophobic, but is pro-Japanese.

I don't really know what I would pick, both are fucking disgraceful, but I sincerely think ours is worse as it leads to far bigger problems. And it would lead to xenophobia anyway, because we're far more likely to attract immigrants from places like Haiti, Bolivia, Paraguay, Angola, Peru and Nigeria now than from the peoples we look at as superior to us.

This is completely off topic spam.

not really

[Respubliko de Libereco]

The issue with the discussion in this thread seems to be that some people are saying "rights" as in "legally protected rights", while others are referring to rights in a more abstract sense. It's perfectly reasonable to say something like "everyone has the right to freedom" in a country in which slavery is still legal, as long as you're not referring to a legal right.

So the people who say "he has a write to turn away whoever he wants" don't mean he has the legal right to do so, but rather that he should have that right, regardless of what the law says.

In which case, said people might want to use the phrases "He should have that right", and "This is an unjust law".

I have seen at least one person clarify that they're not talking about the legal kind of right, only to be mostly ignored.
The word "should" doesn't need to be present, seeing as the non-legal kind of right can still (arguably) be said to exist, and treating it as hypothetical may unfairly skew the argument.

[Cannot think of a name]

That you are wrong and you should stop saying wrong things as if they were right.

I'm not really sure what that means (you're welcome to specify), but I'll try.

I seriously could not have dumbed that down any more than I already have. If that's the badge you want to wear, don't let me get in your way.

[Lincolnocracy]

I'm not really sure what that means (you're welcome to specify), but I'll try.

I seriously could not have dumbed that down any more than I already have. If that's the badge you want to wear, don't let me get in your way.

I agreed with you that what the restaurant owner was doing is in contravention of US law? I'm not sure what else you were trying to tell me?

[Respubliko de Libereco]

I'm not really sure what that means (you're welcome to specify), but I'll try.

I seriously could not have dumbed that down any more than I already have. If that's the badge you want to wear, don't let me get in your way.

His point is that he's not talking about whether the restaurant owner has a legal right to discriminate, but rather whether he has a moral right to discriminate. In other words, he thinks the law is wrong. As such, quoting the law does not prove him wrong, as you seem to claim.

EDIT: Also, he just posted the exact same thing, more or less, right above me.

[The Ben Boys]

No I'm not. I'm not going to justify it here because it's off-topic. If you want to talk to me about it, then TG me, but let's not clutter up the thread.

You can't justify it without a religious text. We all know that. That's always how it is.

If you support the restaurant owner being permitted to continue doing what he does, then your reasons for it are very relevant.

As it's been established, I don't support him and hoped he is sued and loses his business. I'm fine with talking to you about it, but if your bent on having it in this thread them I'm not going to because it's off-topic.

[Natapoc]

As much as I dislike the so called "libertarian" capitalist philosophy, the author of this article is wrong to claim that this is somehow an example of why that philosophy won't work.

One could just as easily point to this as an example of how laws don't work or how government does not work. After all, this restaurant owner has been openly violating the laws for 4 decades and yet laws against discrimination have not stopped him from openly violating the intent of a multitude of laws without consequence simply because of technicalities within how those laws are written.

There are far better arguments against the libertarian capitalist ideology then the existence of a racist restaurant in a non libertarian capitalist society.

On the topic of this specific restaurant, the owner should be banned from his restaurant on the grounds that he's in no way "great" and the fact that he's a member of a parasite class that lives on the productivity of others (his employees)

[Satanic Socialist States]

No I'm not. I'm not going to justify it here because it's off-topic. If you want to talk to me about it, then TG me, but let's not clutter up the thread.

You can't justify it without a religious text. We all know that. That's always how it is.

If you support the restaurant owner being permitted to continue doing what he does, then your reasons for it are very relevant.

Their business. Their loss.

Some business owners do not care about losing potential income.

A business, whose goal is profit, should only care if you are one of those things - ie rich. Any other consideration is irrational and bad for the bottom line. But I still support the right of private business, on individually held property to discriminate against anyone fitting their prerogative.

Now government land or public/commonly held land? No way. It's NOT within the government's prerogative to discriminate against anyone.

A private business serving the public does not have the right to discriminate in such a way.

Yes, it does! Maybe not the legal right, but the abstract right, yes. I don't agree with it, but it isn't my business. Same with free speech, I don't agree with what people say but that doesn't mean I should silence them.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And why should it be a right to discriminate based upon race?

It's not a right to discriminate, although the right to discriminate is nested within the right. Instead, it's a right not to sell your stuff if you don't want to, except in cases of strict need.

So it is a right to discriminate, just nestled within that other right.

[ALMF]

The racial tensions were already there before the civil rights act.

Yeah. I'm not American, but I would think that racial quotas in the Civil Rights Act 1964 deepened the tensions between different groups of people, since it gave "black people" special privileges at the expense of other groups of people.

History is agenst you: like other cases in functioning democracies.

[Lincolnocracy]

It's not a right to discriminate, although the right to discriminate is nested within the right. Instead, it's a right not to sell your stuff if you don't want to, except in cases of strict need.

So it is a right to discriminate, just nestled within that other right.

I find that conceptually confusing, but if it works for you, then you're free to arrange it that way.

Remember, of course, that it's a limited right to discriminate. It entails that you're free not to sell your own stuff to people for silly reasons as well as good ones. Racism would be a silly reason.

[ALMF]

The idiot should have his restaurant closed and he should be fined for violating the law. It's really that simple.

Its a private company. He serves private guests. He has the right to determine who and who cannot enter his facility.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation

[Satanic Socialist States]

Its a private company. He serves private guests. He has the right to determine who and who cannot enter his facility.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation

Someone here already pointed out that we mean rights in the abstract sense.

[ALMF]

As disgusting as that sounds, it's his business. If he want to be a ignorant, intolerant bigot, let him. The sensible people will ignore the fact his restaurant exists.

Unfortunatly that is illegal if its a public company...however because this is a private company, this man may freely discriminate.

So a lie told over and over is the truth?

[Respubliko de Libereco]

Its a private company. He serves private guests. He has the right to determine who and who cannot enter his facility.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation

This has already been brought up, but let me point it out again: most people who argue that he has a right not to serve certain people recognize that this right is not backed up by the law, and believe that the law is wrong. They are referring to a moral right, not a legal right, and as such quoting the law does not prove them wrong.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So it is a right to discriminate, just nestled within that other right.

I find that conceptually confusing, but if it works for you, then you're free to arrange it that way.

Remember, of course, that it's a limited right to discriminate. It entails that you're free not to sell your own stuff to people for silly reasons as well as good ones. Racism would be a silly reason.

Except when writ large, this leads to second-class citizenship and the near impossibility of social and economic progress for minorities. I'm not even talking about Jim Crow South, where discrimination was legally enforced on the part of the government, and so doesn't apply. I'm talking about my own city, Los Angeles, where black people were confined to certain neighborhoods, were turned away from grocery stores and restaurants in white neighborhoods, and were subjected to discrimination in ways both great and small for decades. The stores would serve rotten meat, expired milk, and moldy fruit and vegetables. Restaurants in South L.A. neighborhoods, such as they were, were unsanitary hellholes. And there was no serious incentive for businesses to do any better, because it's not like these people could go into the white neighborhoods without getting turned away.

Exceptions were made in the case of black celebrities, of course, but they were just that...exceptions. Black folks had to deal with poor food, leading to ill health. And due to institutional racism, things didn't change until they got the power to take legal action against institutions that refused to serve them.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So it is a right to discriminate, just nestled within that other right.

I find that conceptually confusing, but if it works for you, then you're free to arrange it that way.

Remember, of course, that it's a limited right to discriminate. It entails that you're free not to sell your own stuff to people for silly reasons as well as good ones. Racism would be a silly reason.

How is it conceptually confusing? I simply used a portion of the sentence that you wrote.

[Lincolnocracy]

I find that conceptually confusing, but if it works for you, then you're free to arrange it that way.

Remember, of course, that it's a limited right to discriminate. It entails that you're free not to sell your own stuff to people for silly reasons as well as good ones. Racism would be a silly reason.

Except when writ large, this leads to second-class citizenship and the near impossibility of social and economic progress for minorities. I'm not even talking about Jim Crow South, where discrimination was legally enforced on the part of the government, and so doesn't apply. I'm talking about my own city, Los Angeles, where black people were confined to certain neighborhoods, were turned away from grocery stores and restaurants in white neighborhoods, and were subjected to discrimination in ways both great and small for decades. The stores would serve rotten meat, expired milk, and moldy fruit and vegetables. Restaurants in South L.A. neighborhoods, such as they were, were unsanitary hellholes. And there was no serious incentive for businesses to do any better, because it's not like these people could go into the white neighborhoods without getting turned away.

Exceptions were made in the case of black celebrities, of course, but they were just that...exceptions. Black folks had to deal with poor food, leading to ill health. And due to institutional racism, things didn't change until they got the power to take legal action against institutions that refused to serve them.

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.

[ALMF]

Right here. This is a lie.

It's p-r-i-v-a-t-e. He doesn't serve the public. So it's not a lie.

you underline and ittisise the lie doesn't make it less a lie

[Mavorpen]

Except when writ large, this leads to second-class citizenship and the near impossibility of social and economic progress for minorities. I'm not even talking about Jim Crow South, where discrimination was legally enforced on the part of the government, and so doesn't apply. I'm talking about my own city, Los Angeles, where black people were confined to certain neighborhoods, were turned away from grocery stores and restaurants in white neighborhoods, and were subjected to discrimination in ways both great and small for decades. The stores would serve rotten meat, expired milk, and moldy fruit and vegetables. Restaurants in South L.A. neighborhoods, such as they were, were unsanitary hellholes. And there was no serious incentive for businesses to do any better, because it's not like these people could go into the white neighborhoods without getting turned away.

Exceptions were made in the case of black celebrities, of course, but they were just that...exceptions. Black folks had to deal with poor food, leading to ill health. And due to institutional racism, things didn't change until they got the power to take legal action against institutions that refused to serve them.

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.

Why don't you tell us why it isn't writ large?

Say it with us: The Civil Rights act of 1964.

[Nevanmaa]

Boo-hoo, so because it's a law it must be right? I don't still see a problem why a man should accept anyone into his establishment. If you don't like it, don't go there and let the people who like it go there. Sometimes you leftists really sound like social conservatives you claim to hate so much, wanting to restrict individual freedom like this.

You basically just said Freedom is Slavery.

I want you to sit and think about that for just a minute. You just said that stopping people from oppressing or harming others is a restriction of freedom. You apparently have no idea what freedom means, what it is like to lose it, and what it is like to be despised and oppressed by others. You really have no place in any society that pretends to be civilized.

You have no right to enter someone else's property. If a restaurant doesn't want you, then there is no mutually agreed contract and you should get on your way and find another restaurant.

You're really reminding me of some fundamentalist Christians who wish to force their beliefs of everyone, you both believe that your belief is the only correct one and must be mandated by law. I think it's you who is afraid of freedom here, desperately wanting to state to interfere in mutually agreed contracts between individuals. It's sad, really.

[Lincolnocracy]

I find that conceptually confusing, but if it works for you, then you're free to arrange it that way.

Remember, of course, that it's a limited right to discriminate. It entails that you're free not to sell your own stuff to people for silly reasons as well as good ones. Racism would be a silly reason.

How is it conceptually confusing? I simply used a portion of the sentence that you wrote.

Because I don't think there is a separate right to discriminate, I think it's an aspect of the more fundamental right I was discussing.

To analogize, it's like if someone said, "I have a right to freely speak verbs, another right to freely speak nouns, and a third right to freely speak adjectives." It would be confusing to someone who simply believed in a right to free speech. Technically, they would be the same, but you can understand why the former terms would sound idiosyncratic to someone familiar with the latter expression.

[Mavorpen]

You have no right to enter someone else's property.

Of course you do. Well, if it's a public accommodation you do.

[Nazi Flower Power]

The racial tensions were already there before the civil rights act.

Yeah. I'm not American, but I would think that racial quotas in the Civil Rights Act 1964 deepened the tensions between different groups of people, since it gave "black people" special privileges at the expense of other groups of people.

I think you underestimate how bad racial tensions were before the civil rights act. We no longer have quotas, and things have settled down to be more peaceful than they were before 1964.