Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?

[tremendoustie]

Whose individual rights are more important? The resturant owner's or the KKK member's? Or do they have equal individual rights?

Everyone has equal rights. If you own property, you can decide who can use that property. Others can decide to boycott and picket you.

I can't dictate to you who you must allow on your property, because it's your property, not mine.

 

[tremendoustie]

Very clear. All have the right to discriminate who can walk into their business or home.

Where we depart in agreement is that when a business owner decides to open his business to the public. When you invite the public, you agree to let free people on your property and have no rights to limit their liberty as long as they do not distrupt your business. Most business are not open to the public and do very well. Resturant owners that want to discriminate only need to have a members only policy. I'll support them keeping the KKK out. When a business states they are open to the public they assume different responsibilities.

Individual rights are not absolute for individual or business owners.

Sorry, if I own property, I have a right to allow or disallow anyone on it I choose. That can include everyone in the public but one person, if I want. You don't have a right to go around with a gun forcing people to run their business the way you want them to, and you don't magically gain that right with popular approval.

Again, I own my property, not you. You do not have the "liberty" to use someone else's property against their will. That's called theft and/or trespass.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

all business are open to the public.
hell, I fix computers, i'm open to the public.
Do you own my business now?

Most business don't have public access or accomodations and when they do, it is limited. If your computer business is open to the public, it's your choice. Chemical factories, ammo manufactors, defense contractors are examples of business that have no or very limited public accomodations. Public accomodation are most common in retail and resturants, but even these can become membership based.


Noboby own your business but you.

 

[Theocrat]

Unthinkable Results...

Wow. Rachel Maddow would be so shocked to see our poll results right now that her penis would fall off.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Sorry, if I own property, I have a right to allow or disallow anyone on it I choose. That can include everyone in the public but one person, if I want. You don't have a right to go around with a gun forcing people to run their business the way you want them to, and you don't magically gain that right with popular approval.

Again, I own my property, not you. You do not have the "liberty" to use someone else's property against their will. That's called theft and/or trespass.

I am in complete agreement with this.

 

[Theocrat]

Socialist Justice

Everyone has equal rights. If you own property, you can decide who can use that property. Others can decide to boycott and picket you.

I can't dictate to you who you must allow on your property, because it's your property, not mine.

"But...but...I have a right to what your service provides me!" shouts the desperate socialist. "You can't deny me my rights! That's prejudice! MOM!" And the angry socialist storms down the beltway to tell Nanny on you.

 

[tremendoustie]

I am in complete agreement with this.

I don't understand then, because it seems like you're suggesting otherwise (admittedly I have not read the whole thread).

Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't understand then, because it seems like you're suggesting otherwise (admittedly I have not read the whole thread).

Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.

Add a "but if they dont" on the end. That's you, right?

 

[idirtify]

Very clear. All have the right to discriminate who can walk into their business or home.

Where we depart in agreement is that when a business owner decides to open his business to the public. When you invite the public, you agree to let free people on your property and have no rights to limit their liberty as long as they do not distrupt your business. Most business are not open to the public and do very well. Resturant owners that want to discriminate only need to have a members only policy. I'll support them keeping the KKK out. When a business states they are open to the public they assume different responsibilities.

Individual rights are not absolute for individual or business owners.

Such businesses often set special rules for entry. Bars often hire doormen to select who can and can not enter.

Regarding “clubs”, you mean they can legally discriminate against letting blacks join?

 

[tremendoustie]

Add a "but if they dont" on the end. That's you, right?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Wow. Rachel Maddow would be so shocked to see our poll results right now that her penis would fall off.

Ok Theo, you cracked me up. Chalk it up as a first, but I must insist all penis jokes include the Small Penis Lobby Center.

 

[ctiger2]

No. No one should be forced to serve anyone.

^This. We wouldn't want the Govt. telling us we can't serve someone as well.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.

Let me add a qualifier (since I agree with you wholeheartedly), that when its said 'the community', at least I mean 'individuals' not just 'local government'. I see no difference between tyranny of the majority at the local level than I do of tyranny of the majority at the State or Federal level. Woolworths ending of the segregated lunch counters was done through Free Market means, not government coercion.

 

[tremendoustie]

Let me add a qualifier (since I agree with you wholeheartedly), that when its said 'the community', at least I mean 'individuals' not just 'local government'. I see no difference between tyranny of the majority at the local level than I do of tyranny of the majority at the State or Federal level. Woolworths ending of the segregated lunch counters was done through Free Market means, not government coercion.

Yep.

 

[REDNECK WOMAN]

Yes

Yes I do. Should a White restaurant serve the Black Panther's? if you don't you will be called racist and be sued!!!!!

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Yes I do. If the Black panthers came in should you sever them?

sever what?

 

[not.your.average.joe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephTheLibertarian
No. No one should be forced to serve anyone.

^This. We wouldn't want the Govt. telling us we can't serve someone as well.

FYI,
From what i have been hearing from the left... just informing you on what i have heard...

1. its not about being forced to serve someone, but about someone being denied service based on the color of their skin. and that no one should be denied service based on skin color.
2. they keep using the example of a hospital, or town doctor.. "so if a black man needs urgent medical attention and goes to the only doctor in town but is refused service based on his skin color he is just out of luck"
or sometimes they use a hotel saying "if im a black man traveling across the country and i need to stop and get a room but the racist owner denies me service i am shit out of luck"

liberal infested waters...
http://rubechat.kfan.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=99108

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

FYI,
From what i have been hearing from the left... just informing you on what i have heard...

1. its not about being forced to serve someone, but about someone being denied service based on the color of their skin. and that no one should be denied service based on skin color.
2. they keep using the example of a hospital, or town doctor.. "so if a black man needs urgent medical attention and goes to the only doctor in town but is refused service based on his skin color he is just out of luck"
or sometimes they use a hotel saying "if im a black man traveling across the country and i need to stop and get a room but the racist owner denies me service i am shit out of luck"

who cares? 95% of small businesses fail in their first year. if I take the time and effort in starting one, why cant I serve whoever I want to serve. it's supposed to be MY business, right?

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I don't understand then, because it seems like you're suggesting otherwise (admittedly I have not read the whole thread).

Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.

I agree with you because one person less than the entire public is not full public access. Your property, you set the rules. I think that when you grant total public access you make an unwritten agreement with the public. As liberty is a constitutional right, does a man have liberty if he cannot go where the public is invited? This right is not absolute. If he distrupts business, the owner has property rights to remove him.

Also the question is very vague. The term force is pretty broad. If force means using a court injunction to protect your right to liberty, I can be for it. I too prefer a non-violent, non-government solution where disagrrement are solved between individuals.

 

[not.your.average.joe]

who cares? 95% of small businesses fail in their first year. if I take the time and effort in starting one, why cant I serve whoever I want to serve. it's supposed to be MY business, right?

Well, I think that the fact that someone would refuse to serve someone else on the color of their skin alone is discrimination.. and would go against all men being equal?