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

[Respubliko de Libereco]

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.

Er, I believe "they" was either Cannot Think Of A Name or Yumyumsuppertime. At any rate, as an impartial observer, I can attest that someone certainly did mention Jim Crow.

[Mavorpen]

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

More like any answer is nonsensical. I can't predict the future nor can I see any potential futures given "X." We haven't seen anything like that happen, so any answer I give would be pulled out of my ass. Which is why I haven't said a single thing about how bad discrimination would get given a repeal of the CRA.

[Lincolnocracy]

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.

But Jim Crow was an example. I also believe that things not as bad as Jim Crow won't return. If you read back, I was actually trying to have a discussion about what would and wouldn't happen. This has been lost because you refuse to see a question about consequences as anything other than a claim about the imminent return of a system which is transparently not returning.

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.

Nobody said anything about Jim Crow returning, it was an example of a bad thing happening as a result of the Civil Rights Act being amended or repealed which other people would then respond to with their thoughts. Eg: "No, not Jim Crow, but X, Y, and Z."

Your entire case falls apart if you just accept that, when asking people about the evils of repealing or amending the Civil Rights Act, I preferred to use an example. Which is why you're so tenaciously clinging to the point, you don't want your misinterpretation to have been wasted time, otherwise you were just insulting some guy on the internet for more or less no reason.

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.

You didn't answer me, you just said that it was needed. Saying that something is needed isn't an explanation. I also notice that you've refused to answer my questions. What do you think would happen if restaurants could discriminate? Surely you have an opinion?

[ALMF]

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

So you misunderstand high-school bissnes basics and face-palm when he corrects you?

[Mavorpen]

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.

Er, I believe "they" was either Cannot Think Of A Name or Yumyumsuppertime. At any rate, as an impartial observer, I can attest that someone certainly did mention Jim Crow.

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.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

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

More like any answer is nonsensical. I can't predict the future nor can I see any potential futures given "X." We haven't seen anything like that happen, so any answer I give would be pulled out of my ass. Which is why I haven't said a single thing about how bad discrimination would get given a repeal of the CRA.

To be fair, you can't just dismiss discussing hypothetical future events based on "I can't see the future". Any discussion about the benefits and downsides of a law has to take into account what differences the law actually makes.

For example, you can't say "alcohol should be banned again", and then respond to "won't that result in an increase in organized crime?" with "I can't see the future, so don't bring it up."

[Mavorpen]

But Jim Crow was an example. I also believe that things not as bad as Jim Crow won't return.

No, it wasn't an example nor was there ANYTHING indicating so. You've pulled this nonsense out of thin air when faced with having your straw man exposed.

Nobody said anything about Jim Crow returning, it was an example of a bad thing happening as a result of the Civil Rights Act being amended or repealed which other people would then respond to with their thoughts. Eg: "No, not Jim Crow, but X, Y, and Z."

Again, there was NO indication of it being an example and in fact, your phrasing suggested the opposite.

You didn't answer me

Nonsense.

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.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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

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.

Know what? Never mind. I looked it up myself so as to save you the trouble. And guess what? By that definition, the owner of the business has no rights to discriminate against stakeholders on the basis of race. None. And as has been pointed out already, I defy you to find a Supreme Court decision that says otherwise.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

Er, I believe "they" was either Cannot Think Of A Name or Yumyumsuppertime. At any rate, as an impartial observer, I can attest that someone certainly did mention Jim Crow.

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.

My bad. To be fair, though, I did say "mention", not "actually use as part of an argument."

[Mavorpen]

To be fair, you can't just dismiss discussing hypothetical future events based on "I can't see the future". Any discussion about the benefits and downsides of a law has to take into account what differences the law actually makes.

Right. But that involves things which we can REASONABLY estimate what would happen. This is not one of those.

For example, you can't say "alcohol should be banned again", and then respond to "won't that result in an increase in organized crime?" with "I can't see the future, so don't bring it up."

Of course I can.

[Mavorpen]

My bad. To be fair, though, I did say "mention", not "actually use as part of an argument."

Going backwards, it turns out that this individual in question is apparently me. The funny part? I didn't mention Jim Crow AT ALL.

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

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

Because now people are less racist. Which may be a consequence of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other things. Are you suggesting that Jim Crow would return if restaurants could turn away anyone they liked?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

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

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)

I am going to bed now, but I will continue to respond tomorrow.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

To be fair, you can't just dismiss discussing hypothetical future events based on "I can't see the future". Any discussion about the benefits and downsides of a law has to take into account what differences the law actually makes.

Right. But that involves things which we can REASONABLY estimate what would happen. This is not one of those.

For example, you can't say "alcohol should be banned again", and then respond to "won't that result in an increase in organized crime?" with "I can't see the future, so don't bring it up."

Of course I can.

You should be able to reasonably estimate what would happen in this case, too. Of course, you can't be 100% certain about anything, but you can make an educated guess, and use a variety of information to support your guess. Even if you don't have a really obvious historical precedent (I should have chosen something other than prohibition for my example), this sort of speculation is still important, and not completely pointless. If you can't speculate on the affect that a law has on society, compared to a society in which that law does not exist, then how can you determine the value of the law?

[ALMF]

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

More like any answer is nonsensical. I can't predict the future nor can I see any potential futures given "X." We haven't seen anything like that happen, so any answer I give would be pulled out of my ass. Which is why I haven't said a single thing about how bad discrimination would get given a repeal of the CRA.

Given even 1 person arguing for "a right to refuse service to anyone" (and there have been meany) makes it likely (but not certon) the removal wold make things more like preban (witch is jim crow) than the modern.

In any case, the likely outcome is the central thing you nead in evaluating any ethical claim of changing nondiscrimination law.

[Mavorpen]

Right. But that involves things which we can REASONABLY estimate what would happen. This is not one of those.

Of course I can.

You should be able to reasonably estimate what would happen in this case, too. Of course, you can't be 100% certain about anything, but you can make an educated guess, and use a variety of information to support your guess. Even if you don't have a really obvious historical precedent (I should have chosen something other than prohibition for my example), this sort of speculation is still important, and not completely pointless. If you can't speculate on the affect that a law has on society, compared to a society in which that law does not exist, then how can you determine the value of the law?

The hell are you talking about? I have never said that you can't speculate the effect of a law.

[Lincolnocracy]

But Jim Crow was an example. I also believe that things not as bad as Jim Crow won't return.

No, it wasn't an example nor was there ANYTHING indicating so. You've pulled this nonsense out of thin air when faced with having your straw man exposed.

But why would you assume that, when the consequences of the Civil Rights Act is such a huge part of this thread?

The truth is that you've been reading me uncharitably throughout, peppering me with insults. Do you even see how you've been treating people who disagree with you?

Nobody said anything about Jim Crow returning, it was an example of a bad thing happening as a result of the Civil Rights Act being amended or repealed which other people would then respond to with their thoughts. Eg: "No, not Jim Crow, but X, Y, and Z."

Again, there was NO indication of it being an example and in fact, your phrasing suggested the opposite.

In a thread which had become about the Civil Rights Act and restaurants, I asked a question about the Civil Rights Act and restaurants. How is this controversial? My point was genuine, asking someone about the consequences of a law they support is genuine, how can you not see that?

If you read back, when people answered, you know, like the guy who mentioned Los Angeles, I responded to what he said. I didn't at all act as though he thought Jim Crow was going to return.

You didn't answer me

Nonsense.

OK, what was your answer?

[Respubliko de Libereco]

You should be able to reasonably estimate what would happen in this case, too. Of course, you can't be 100% certain about anything, but you can make an educated guess, and use a variety of information to support your guess. Even if you don't have a really obvious historical precedent (I should have chosen something other than prohibition for my example), this sort of speculation is still important, and not completely pointless. If you can't speculate on the affect that a law has on society, compared to a society in which that law does not exist, then how can you determine the value of the law?

The hell are you talking about? I have never said that you can't speculate the effect of a law.

You said:

I can't predict the future nor can I see any potential futures given "X." We haven't seen anything like that happen, so any answer I give would be pulled out of my ass. Which is why I haven't said a single thing about how bad discrimination would get given a repeal of the CRA.

I interpreted this as implying that speculating on the effects of repealing the CRA is not a worthwhile endeavor. If that's not what you meant, sorry for misinterpreting.

[Mavorpen]

But why would you assume that, when the consequences of the Civil Rights Act is such a huge part of this thread?

What?

In a thread which had become about the Civil Rights Act and restaurants, I asked a question about the Civil Rights Act and restaurants. How is this controversial? My point was genuine, asking someone about the consequences of a law they support is genuine, how can you not see that?

No, it wasn't. Because it was based around a straw man you constructed.

If you read back, when people answered, you know, like the guy who mentioned Los Angeles, I responded to what he said. I didn't at all act as though he thought Jim Crow was going to return.

Yes, it turns out that was me. Which was completely asinine considering I NEVER mentioned Jim Crow.

OK, what was your answer?

Discrimination exists. Isn't that obvious?

[Mavorpen]

The hell are you talking about? I have never said that you can't speculate the effect of a law.

You said:

I can't predict the future nor can I see any potential futures given "X." We haven't seen anything like that happen, so any answer I give would be pulled out of my ass. Which is why I haven't said a single thing about how bad discrimination would get given a repeal of the CRA.

I interpreted this as implying that speculating on the effects of repealing the CRA is not a worthwhile endeavor. If that's not what you meant, sorry for misinterpreting.

No, I said that I don't want to form an opinion on the degree of how bad it would be. I do maintain that discrimination would increase, but to what degree I'm not sure and I can't know.

[Stovokor]

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.

First amendment applies to the person, not their establishment, their establishment is a public venue, civil rights legislation has already dealt with this issue.

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

First amendment applies to the person, not their establishment, their establishment is a public venue, civil rights legislation has already dealt with this issue.

The legislation does no good if nobody reports the business for violating the laws though. That's what happened for 44 years.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

I interpreted this as implying that speculating on the effects of repealing the CRA is not a worthwhile endeavor. If that's not what you meant, sorry for misinterpreting.

No, I said that I don't want to form an opinion on the degree of how bad it would be. I do maintain that discrimination would increase, but to what degree I'm not sure and I can't know.

Speculating on how much discrimination would increase is still important, though, even if you can't know for sure. I don't think Lincolnocracy is denying that discrimination would increase. I think he just believes that the decrease in discrimination would not be significant enough to overshadow the benefits of his proposed change in legislation (whatever he believes they are), hence his repeated assertion that Jim Crow levels of discrimination would not return, an assertion that may seem irrelevant to you.

If I'm misrepresenting your argument, Lincolnocracy, please correct me.

[Lincolnocracy]

But why would you assume that, when the consequences of the Civil Rights Act is such a huge part of this thread?

What?

We were talking about the Civil Rights Act? I then proceeded to ask questions about the Civil Rights Act? It was a couple of pages back.

In a thread which had become about the Civil Rights Act and restaurants, I asked a question about the Civil Rights Act and restaurants. How is this controversial? My point was genuine, asking someone about the consequences of a law they support is genuine, how can you not see that?

No, it wasn't. Because it was based around a straw man you constructed.

Are you saying that the consequences of the Civil Rights Act only mattered in my alleged straw man? Because it seems like the effects of a law are always salient, when you're evaluating that law.

What I find most insulting is that rather than accept that I was making a legitimate point, and then claim that I made it in a shoddy way, you seem to believe that asking a question about the impact of the Civil Rights Act would never occur to me. It's such an obvious thing to do, to ask someone how they think a law helps, and to what extent it prevents wicked practices. Like, this is the most straightforward thing in the world, but still you rule it out as a possibility.

If you read back, when people answered, you know, like the guy who mentioned Los Angeles, I responded to what he said. I didn't at all act as though he thought Jim Crow was going to return.

Yes, it turns out that was me. Which was completely asinine considering I NEVER mentioned Jim Crow.

It was yumyumsuppertime. Unless that's another account of yours?

OK, what was your answer?

Discrimination exists. Isn't that obvious?

It's so obvious that not once did I challenge it. I asked you what would happen if restaurants were allowed to discriminate.

[Mavorpen]

No, I said that I don't want to form an opinion on the degree of how bad it would be. I do maintain that discrimination would increase, but to what degree I'm not sure and I can't know.

Speculating on how much discrimination would increase is still important, though, even if you can't know for sure. I don't think Lincolnocracy is denying that discrimination would increase. I think he just believes that the decrease in discrimination would not be significant enough to overshadow the benefits of his proposed change in legislation (whatever he believes they are), hence his repeated assertion that Jim Crow levels of discrimination would not return, an assertion that may seem irrelevant to you.

If I'm misrepresenting your argument, Lincolnocracy, please correct me.

That assertion IS irrelevant, since it completely and utterly misses the purpose of the CRA.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What?

We were talking about the Civil Rights Act? I then proceeded to ask questions about the Civil Rights Act? It was a couple of pages back.

No, it wasn't. Because it was based around a straw man you constructed.

Are you saying that the consequences of the Civil Rights Act only mattered in my alleged straw man? Because it seems like the effects of a law are always salient, when you're evaluating that law.

What I find most insulting is that rather than accept that I was making a legitimate point, and then claim that I made it in a shoddy way, you seem to believe that asking a question about the impact of the Civil Rights Act would never occur to me. It's such an obvious thing to do, to ask someone how they think a law helps, and to what extent it prevents wicked practices. Like, this is the most straightforward thing in the world, but still you rule it out as a possibility.

Yes, it turns out that was me. Which was completely asinine considering I NEVER mentioned Jim Crow.

It was yumyumsuppertime. Unless that's another account of yours?

I certainly hope not, otherwise I'm going to have to get a whole new set of meds from my psychiatrist.