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

[kylejack]

Race is a protected class, organizational membership is not, so yes people can discriminate based on organizational membership.

 

[virgil47]

Race is a protected class, organizational membership is not, so yes people can discriminate based on organizational membership.

So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?

 

[torchbearer]

So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?

in a world that respects self-ownership. yes.

 

[kylejack]

So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?

Yes, provided they are only doing it to NAACP members and not to a race in general. Note that there are also some white members of NAACP and other races.

 

[Theocrat]

A Message to kylejack

Yes, provided they are only doing it to NAACP members and not to a race in general. Note that there are also some white members of NAACP and other races.

 

[kylejack]

What in the world are you talking about? Basically you don't understand CRA and I am trying to explain it to you. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected class.

 

[virgil47]

in a world that respects self-ownership. yes.

Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Theocrat]

That Interpretation Wouldn't Last...

What in the world are you talking about? Basically you don't understand CRA and I am trying to explain it to you. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected class.

I posted that tongue-in-cheek, but you and I both know that if any establishment refused service to the NAACP, it would be seen as racist. The media would have a field day with it.

 

[kylejack]

I posted that tongue-in-cheek, but you and I both know that if any establishment refused service to the NAACP, it would be seen as racist. The media would have a field day with it.

Well then let me point out another principle to you, freedom of speech. The media may have a field day if they wish.

 

[tremendoustie]

Rights are not determined by government. Anyone has a right to decide who to allow or disallow on their property, and who to serve. Others have a right to publicize such bigotry, boycott and picket the business, as well as boycott suppliers and customers.

 

[kylejack]

Rights are not determined by government. Anyone has a right to decide who to allow or disallow on their property, and who to serve. Others have a right to publicize such bigotry, boycott and picket the business, as well as boycott suppliers and customers.

But his original question was a legal one about Title II of CRA, not a moral question.

 

[tremendoustie]

But his original question was a legal one about Title II of CRA, not a moral question.

Oh, fair enough then. Sorry for misconstruing the discussion.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The argument still fails.

Oh really? And which argument is that? Let's be specific, and thus, meaningful, shall we? The argument that in the racist customers scenario we find the exact same behavior as in the racist Woolworths scenario? Because that was, obviously, the main argument made in that paragraph. Why, I even bolded it. Do you contest that argument?

Let's say the government passes two laws. One says vendors can't say why they are refusing to serve black customers, but they are free to arbitrarily refuse anybody. The other says customers can't picket businesses and cannot say why they are not buying something [if it's for racist reasons]. What now?

Well, yeah! What now? Now the same identical behavior by customers and businessmen is treated the same identical way. So why is it that no one on planet earth would support such a law limiting customers in this way? I think it's because of an anti-business bias and a ridiculously over-inflated view of the power of businesses. Do you disagree?

BTW, I am thrilled to see Jacob Hornberger wrote an article making this exact same point, and am very proud that I could independently come up with the same thought as him.

Look at it another way. Say if we were talking about voting instead of businesses. Do you think that people should be compelled to vote just because the government shouldn't be allowed, without cause for something other than race, deny them the right to vote? Using your analogy, the government should be compelling people not only to vote, but to vote for candidates outside their race.

There we go! Exactly! It's the same principle, isn't it? There should be a quota/affirmative action program begun to make sure that every voter supports a "fair" proportion of minority candidates. If it's evil and horrid to hire too many whites, surely it's even more evil and horrid to support too many whites for elective office. We must stomp out this sin of discrimination everywhere we can, by any means necessary.

Next up: mandatory miscegenation.

That's because you are ignorant of how the hospital system works.

I am ignorant of many things. Though you have no basis for knowing whether I am ignorant or not on this subject, as it happens I am in fact ignorant of the details of running a hospital, at least more so than you seem to be claiming to be. So you have guessed rightly. Of course, when one knows a great deal on an esoteric topic, it is usually a safe guess that any person picked at random will be quite ignorant about it compared to oneself. Whether this makes it a sensible practice to go around calling everyone ignorant is another matter. A matter for the courts to decide, I suppose. Everything else is.

You can't just go out and build a hospital. You have to first have a certificate of need from the government. If you even try to even expand your hospital, if you don't have a certificate of need the state regulators can shut you down. I know this because I personally knew a hospital administrator that this happened too!

Now you might say "Well the state shouldn't be able to do that." But they can. That's "states rights" at work.

I have a dream, that by focusing on one topic at a time, without bringing in other bizarrely irrelevant side issues, internet forum posters will be able to think more clearly about the topic at hand.

Last point. There are ways to argue your position. You just haven't stumbled on them yet.

Apparently, the correct way involves hospitals. Perhaps the Panic of 1819 and mandatory pet licensing could also be brought in to make things clear.

I'm still waiting for my geometry-style proof of why the state is justified in crushing vendor-racism, but not in crushing buyer-racism, if that is your position. If not, perhaps you could explain your position. Or, you could explain to me more about hospitals.

JMDrake, I still am confused and wondering what your position was/is on all this. What were you trying to say?

 

[jmdrake]

JMDrake, I still am confused and wondering what your position was/is on all this. What were you trying to say?

That the very premise of this thread is irredeemably stupid. I will sum up it's stupidity in two points.

1) Membership in a private organization is not and never will be a "protected class". If a white restaurant owner wanted to bar all member of the NAACP from his establishment he could without violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

2) If blacks had to agree to let a klansman eat at a black owned restaurant in order to end segregation, public and private, most blacks would chose to let the klansman eat at the black restaurant. I don't know what that's so freaking hard for people here at RPF to understand.

If you want to make headway with black people on the Civil Rights Act, come up with another example. We really don't give a rats ass about whether or not a customer wears white sheets in his spare time.



Edit: There is an anti CRA argument that might actually hold water. But I will leave it up to others to point that out. Those who wish to continue to defend John Stossel's abject idiocy on this issue don't deserve enlightenment.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Edit: There is an anti CRA argument that might actually hold water.

Wait, so you are in favor of the Civil Rights Act?

 

[jmdrake]

Race is a protected class, organizational membership is not, so yes people can discriminate based on organizational membership.

So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?

in a world that respects self-ownership. yes.

Yes, provided they are only doing it to NAACP members and not to a race in general. Note that there are also some white members of NAACP and other races.

^This 1 zillion times over! Not sure why some people can't understand simple things like "Membership in a group that you can leave anytime you like does not make you part of a protected class."

 

[jmdrake]

Wait, so you are in favor of the Civil Rights Act?

I don't give a rip about it one way or the other. The feds injected themselves into private business long before the CRA. (Wickard v. Filburn). Segregation, even private segregation, was giving way prior to the passage of the CRA. It's still possible for restaurants and hotels to openly discriminate based on race and not fall afoul of the CRA if they really want to. (Hint. Look up and understand the meaning of the term "public accommodation"). It's really not worth the mental energy that you and others are putting into. But I freaking hate stupid arguments like the one John Stossel pushed and some idiots here picked up without thinking through! If I could I'd dump Stossel off a bridge for being so stupid.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading...


KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan...

"The KKK is for a strong America," John Abarr of the Rocky Mountain Knights told The Great Falls Tribune newspaper. "White supremacy is the old Klan. This is the new Klan."

Continued - KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't give a rip about it one way or the other.

OK.

The feds injected themselves into private business long before the CRA.

My position is, of course, that they shouldn't. Do you agree?

Segregation, even private segregation, was giving way prior to the passage of the CRA.

It was essentially a non-issue in places with freedom on the issue. As blacks in Alabama were protesting not being able to eat at Woolworth's, blacks in Chicago were sitting at Woolworth's eating sandwiches peacefully alongside the whites.

It wasn't a Woolworth's problem! It wasn't a private business problem! The problem was a Monopoly State problem. The obnoxious monopoly state arrogated to itself to decide who could and could not eat together, what businesses could and could not do.

And they're still doing that!

And they shouldn't! It causes problems. Big ones. Small ones. Unforeseen ones. Unknown ones.

Everyone should (obviously) let everyone else do business with whomever they please. The CRA doesn't do that. The CRA makes certain businesses serve people they would rather not serve, involuntarily. It mandates involuntary servitude. It mandates slavery, JM.

It's still possible for restaurants and hotels to openly discriminate based on race and not fall afoul of the CRA if they really want to. (Hint. Look up and understand the meaning of the term "public accommodation").

You would have to change your entire business model to one that's probably non-viable. And even then, I do not believe you would be safe. Could Sam's Club or Costco decide tomorrow to ban all blacks? No.

It's really not worth the mental energy that you and others are putting into.

I think it's an interesting issue to demonstrate the supremacy and importance of property rights.

But I freaking hate stupid arguments like the one John Stossel pushed and some idiots here picked up without thinking through! If I could I'd dump Stossel off a bridge for being so stupid.

I think it's a wonderful analogy. Now is it identical to the mandate it's mocking? No. But that's why they're analogies. The lesson the analogy is teaching, by way of humor, is this: no one should be forced to serve anyone else. Ever. Based on any criteria. Race, Klu-Klux-Klaniness, whatever.

No one should be forced to serve anyone else.

I support this position. I oppose slavery.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

no