Should a black person be forced to serve a Klansman?

[TheConstitutionLives]

YAL turns the question around

YouTube - Property Rights and Racism

 

[corsair]

Brilliant.

The same people who claim it should be illegal for a white person to refuse service to a black person-

will probably say a black man has a right to refuse service to a klansman.



Double-Standard.

 

[kylejack]

People do not choose their race.

 

[0zzy]

People do not choose their race.

Indeed, so therefore the argument is kinda defeated by those who would try to use it against someone like Maddow. (WHAT? Now you are comparing Klansmen to black people!!!)

However, this did fish out the /reason/ these people support rejecting klansmen from service: it's /their/ property to begin with, and that doesn't change if it's a klansman or a black man.

 

[KYJacksonian]

No, they wouldn't...(a legal explanation)

Yeah, I'm new here. Actually, being pre-law, we covered this in one of my classes. It would be covered under the same principle as a business refusing to serve a customer wearing a shirt that pictured a nude woman. One has the right to refuse to serve an individual; one does not, under the CRA, have the right to refuse service to an entire race under Title II. If a black businessowner was refusing to serve all whites or vice versa, this obviously would be an entirely different issue.

So, the black businessowner/klansman example doesn't really hold water. And hypothetically, if it were my business (I'm a white male, FWIW), I'd throw the klansman out, by force if necessary, and it would be entirely legal. Klansman COULD try to sue me for racial discrimination, but I could point to two things, that I'm serving other white customers and that I am white also; the black businessman could point to the former). I'm not discriminating against him on racial, sexual, religious, ethnic, or any other grounds. I'm refusing to serve him because he is disrupting my business (for the purposes of my example, make it a fairly popular restaurant, with the klansman either in full klan regalia or make it a regularly-dressed "David Duke" klansman who is screaming "n*****" loudly). Legally, you have the right to remove such an individual who is making customers uncomfortable. Restaurants throw out unruly patrons all the time. The black businessman/klansman example would hold that a businessowner would never have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason period.

Anyways, to make a general point, the CRA issue is hopefully dead. Rand's stopped talking about it, so should we. There's no satisfactory way of explaining Rand's point to the MSM/NBC. Any other debate of this is purely philosophical. Stop worrying about hardened voters that'll never back RP anyways, focus on the soft-leaning voters who already support RP but need reinforcement after the last week.

 

[Todd]

Ok.....here's devil's advocate.

how can you compare one race discriminating against another race to a group of people (the Klan) whose sole purpose for being was to violate the rights, often with violence, of a particular group of people?

 

[0zzy]

Yeah, I'm new here. Actually, being pre-law, we covered this in one of my classes. It would be covered under the same principle as a business refusing to serve a customer wearing a shirt that pictured a nude woman. One has the right to refuse to serve an individual; one does not, under the CRA, have the right to refuse service to an entire race under Title II. If a black businessowner was refusing to serve all whites or vice versa, this obviously would be an entirely different issue.

So, the black businessowner/klansman example doesn't really hold water. And hypothetically, if it were my business (I'm a white male, FWIW), I'd throw the klansman out, by force if necessary, and it would be entirely legal. Klansman COULD try to sue me for racial discrimination, but I could point to two things, that I'm serving other white customers and that I am white also; the black businessman could point to the former). I'm not discriminating against him on racial, sexual, religious, ethnic, or any other grounds. I'm refusing to serve him because he is disrupting my business (for the purposes of my example, make it a fairly popular restaurant, with the klansman either in full klan regalia or make it a regularly-dressed "David Duke" klansman who is screaming "n*****" loudly). Legally, you have the right to remove such an individual who is making customers uncomfortable. Restaurants throw out unruly patrons all the time. The black businessman/klansman example would hold that a businessowner would never have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason period.

Anyways, to make a general point, the CRA issue is hopefully dead. Rand's stopped talking about it, so should we. There's no satisfactory way of explaining Rand's point to the MSM/NBC. Any other debate of this is purely philosophical. Stop worrying about hardened voters that'll never back RP anyways, focus on the soft-leaning voters who already support RP but need reinforcement after the last week.

Welcome to the forums!
Great explanation.

How's pre-law treating ya these days?

 

[Metal Militia]

Here's one: I was born and raised in Arizona; something I had absolutely no say in. I went to California just last week in search of an apartment, and was told to leave one of the places I was looking at because I'm from Arizona, and they're boycotting us. That's a collective discrimination from a private business over an issue I have absolutely no say in.

 

[0zzy]

Here's one: I was born and raised in Arizona; something I had absolutely no say in. I went to California just last week in search of an apartment, and was told to leave one of the places I was looking at because I'm from Arizona, and they're boycotting us. That's a collective discrimination from a private business over an issue I have absolutely no say in.

That sounds like interstate commerce clause to me!

 

[Epic]

Ok.....here's devil's advocate.

how can you compare one race discriminating against another race to a group of people (the Klan) whose sole purpose for being was to violate the rights, often with violence, of a particular group of people?

Cause if someone wants to ban discriminating based on color of skin - they probably want to allow discriminating based on ideology.

Furthermore, it is very hard for the government to determine the actual intent, so in reality, you can't distinguish one or the other. For instance, a white business owner could claim to not be letting black people in cause he thinks they are members of NAACP (an ideological group) or something.

 

[radiofriendly]

Good Video

Glad to report that I met the "Humble Libertarian" in KY last week! -

 

[carlangaslangas]

Here's one: I was born and raised in Arizona; something I had absolutely no say in. I went to California just last week in search of an apartment, and was told to leave one of the places I was looking at because I'm from Arizona, and they're boycotting us. That's a collective discrimination from a private business over an issue I have absolutely no say in.

That's odd. I would think they would want to welcome people that are leaving Arizona. Right? You could tell them you are boycotting AZ too, who cares.