What law does it violate? The CIvil Rights act of 1964?
Advertisement
by Draica » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:32 am
by Yumyumsuppertime » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:32 am
by Regnum Dominae » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:33 am
by Draica » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:34 am
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:37 am
by AiliailiA » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:39 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
by Draica » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:40 am
by Luveria » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:42 am
Draica wrote: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.
by Rationallia » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:45 am
by Regnum Dominae » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:47 am
Rationallia wrote: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!
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:48 am
Phoenixfox wrote: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.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:56 am
Orham wrote:Phoenixfox wrote: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.
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:58 am
Draica wrote: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.
by Cannot think of a name » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:00 am
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:01 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:...with mustard? Because if there's no mustard, it's not worth switching parties.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:03 am
by Cannot think of a name » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:07 am
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:08 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote: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.
by Draica » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:10 am
Orham wrote:Draica wrote: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?
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:10 am
Orham wrote:Phoenixfox wrote: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.
by Xerographica » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:17 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:17 am
Draica wrote: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.
by Orham » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:28 am
Xerographica wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anarcopia, Cannot think of a name, Dazchan, Dunnah Dunnah Dunnah, Johodovill, Juristonia, Majestic-12 [Bot], New haven america, Tillania, Twazta
Advertisement