Conservative or Libertarian?

[Accountable]

Your priceless. In this case my filters are for equality, something we all have a right to. Living in a society, do you have a problem with "me" vs "we"?

I don't understand your question, but you're mistaken if you think subjugating a specific subclass of property owner to any passer-by is equality.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion about equal rights. You believe your liberty allows you to discriminate, I don't.

But it does! Do you have to let anyone into your home simply because they want to enter? Of course you don't. That would be a violation of your right of private property. If a carpenter chooses to not allow one person to use his tools (his private property used for his own profit) and disallow another person, no one says a word. No one asks him why he discriminates. It should be the same with a building.

The price of living in a society is to loose some of your personal liberty. And I'm not talking about who you choose as your friends, or who you invite into your house. I'm speaking of businesses open to the public. In no way shape or form is it better if business owners can discriminate against people based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, age, political beliefs, or religion. What you promote is a giant can of worms catering to prejudices, something mankind should be striving to over come. For civil rights, it just did not happen on its on. It took a proactive Federal Government.

You can't overcome prejudice by outlawing it. You can't outlaw emotion or opinion, you can only drive it underground. Once there, it festers like an untended wound, popping up in unpredictable ways and circumstances. Outlawing something as complex as bigotry is no better than plugging your ears and closing your eyes. Maybe if you ignore it enough it'll just go away, eh?

Yes, the price of living in a society is to lose some of your personal liberty, but that loss must be kept to an absolute minimum, and each lost must be thoroughly justified. Uncomfortable feelings just aren't enough.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't understand your question, but you're mistaken if you think subjugating a specific subclass of property owner to any passer-by is equality.

But it does! Do you have to let anyone into your home simply because they want to enter? Of course you don't. That would be a violation of your right of private property. If a carpenter chooses to not allow one person to use his tools (his private property used for his own profit) and disallow another person, no one says a word. No one asks him why he discriminates. It should be the same with a building.

You can't overcome prejudice by outlawing it. You can't outlaw emotion or opinion, you can only drive it underground. Once there, it festers like an untended wound, popping up in unpredictable ways and circumstances. Outlawing something as complex as bigotry is no better than plugging your ears and closing your eyes. Maybe if you ignore it enough it'll just go away, eh?

Yes, the price of living in a society is to lose some of your personal liberty, but that loss must be kept to an absolute minimum, and each lost must be thoroughly justified. Uncomfortable feelings just aren't enough.

You are wrong on this issue. Your advocating to just wait until all the prejudice people disappear because it's within the realm of their liberty to not only be prejudice, but to act on it too? That's a cop out. Most victims of prejudice don't have a couple of hundred years to wait. No, you can't overcome prejudice by outlawing it but you can guarantee equal access to services. Whether you want to admit it or not, the civil rights movement ment large improvements in the quality of life of minorities.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I don't understand your question, but you're mistaken if you think subjugating a specific subclass of property owner to any passer-by is equality.

But it does! Do you have to let anyone into your home simply because they want to enter? Of course you don't. That would be a violation of your right of private property. If a carpenter chooses to not allow one person to use his tools (his private property used for his own profit) and disallow another person, no one says a word. No one asks him why he discriminates. It should be the same with a building.

You can't overcome prejudice by outlawing it. You can't outlaw emotion or opinion, you can only drive it underground. Once there, it festers like an untended wound, popping up in unpredictable ways and circumstances. Outlawing something as complex as bigotry is no better than plugging your ears and closing your eyes. Maybe if you ignore it enough it'll just go away, eh?

Yes, the price of living in a society is to lose some of your personal liberty, but that loss must be kept to an absolute minimum, and each lost must be thoroughly justified. Uncomfortable feelings just aren't enough.

Accountables America, where property rights supercede human rights:

 

[Accountable]

You are wrong on this issue. Your advocating to just wait until all the prejudice people disappear because it's within the realm of their liberty to not only be prejudice, but to act on it too?

Once again, consistently and predictably, you've misstated my position. I'm too busy to try to fight through your filters right now.

 

[Minor Axis]

Once again, consistently and predictably, you've misstated my position. I'm too busy to try to fight through your filters right now.

Is "filters" the latest buzz word? And are you implying just liberals have filters? If I wanted to mean I'd say you consistently stake out untenable positions, although not as consistently as Allen.

 

[Alien Allen]

We all have filters. I call it our default reaction to things.

The question is whether when confronted one is open to debate.

I will admit it depends on who the other side is making the argument.

I watch the show on Cheney tonite and my gut instinct told me something drastically changed with that guy. He did not speak or act like the man who was making decisions with Bush Sr.

I used to scoff at such assertions but maybe there is something to it. Although despite his influence I still think Bush was not his puppet

 

[Accountable]

Is "filters" the latest buzz word? And are you implying just liberals have filters? If I wanted to mean I'd say you consistently stake out untenable positions, although not as consistently as Allen.

I'm saying that you have filters that prevent you from communicating with me. Rather than trying to understand what I write, you try to find a way to twist it into some "untenable position."

 

[Tim]

I'm saying that you have filters that prevent you from communicating with me. Rather than trying to understand what I write, you try to find a way to twist it into some "untenable position."

Can we continue with our conversation on this topic?

I really want to know how you would resolve the inevitable segregation that would happen if the 11th section of the civil rights act of 1964 was repealed.

How would you correct or prevent the abuse of the civil rights to millions across the country?



and to help you understand my point on this topic...

If I wanted to open a restaurant here in my town, I would go into it fully understanding that it's a public business. And since it is a public business, I will need to follow many laws and regulations designed to protect the public, all of the public. I may own the business and the property, and only have my immediate family running the business but I would still need to wash my hands after using the bathroom (by law) I would still have to keep the refrigerators and freezers at a specified temperature. I would be required to have a certain number of parking spaces. And on and on... all are laws to protect the public. I can't just run my business as I see fit. The main function of government whether it's local, state or federal is to protect the public. And to do that, some off your liberties must be sacrificed. And you know that's the case in any society.
So how is discrimination any different?

 

[Accountable]

Can we continue with our conversation on this topic?

I really want to know how you would resolve the inevitable segregation that would happen if the 11th section of the civil rights act of 1964 was repealed.

How would you correct or prevent the abuse of the civil rights to millions across the country?



and to help you understand my point on this topic...

If I wanted to open a restaurant here in my town, I would go into it fully understanding that it's a public business. And since it is a public business, I will need to follow many laws and regulations designed to protect the public, all of the public. I may own the business and the property, and only have my immediate family running the business but I would still need to wash my hands after using the bathroom (by law) I would still have to keep the refrigerators and freezers at a specified temperature. I would be required to have a certain number of parking spaces. And on and on... all are laws to protect the public. I can't just run my business as I see fit. The main function of government whether it's local, state or federal is to protect the public. And to do that, some off your liberties must be sacrificed. And you know that's the case in any society.
So how is discrimination any different?

Voluntarily cutting off a source of revenue doesn't risk anyone getting sick.
Voluntarily cutting off a source of revenue doesn't cause traffic jams.

eta: But to continue with the topic, you'd need to answer my question already posed.

 

[Tim]

Voluntarily cutting off a source of revenue doesn't risk anyone getting sick.
Voluntarily cutting off a source of revenue doesn't cause traffic jams.

eta: But to continue with the topic, you'd need to answer my question already posed.

I do not follow your first two statements here... please clarify

As to your previous question, do you mean this one?

Couldn't that grocer decide to become a private club, like a Sam's Club? What then? I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line that declares that people no longer have the right of private property.

I would say no, not for a grocery store. They are in the business of "Public Accommodations" It's not equivalent to a small bar or club that the community can do without. Here is a quote from a good article that is right along with my views on the topic.

Can private clubs and religious organizations discriminate?

​

That depends. When dealing with private individuals, the Federal civil rights statutes only reach as far as public accommodations. Thus, while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose.

Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey's Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God.

Some cities, including Chicago, New York and San Francisco, also have local Civil Rights Laws that are far broader than the Federal law. For example, New York City defines private clubs that derive certain levels of income from business as places of public accommodation for purposes of its Civil Rights Laws. San Francisco requires employers who do business with the city to offer their employees health insurance for non-marital "partners".

source

 

[Accountable]

As to your previous question, do you mean this one?



I would say no, not for a grocery store. They are in the business of "Public Accommodations" It's not equivalent to a small bar or club that the community can do without. Here is a quote from a good article that is right along with my views on the topic.

If the grocer decides to close his doors then the community would go without. Would you try to force him to keep his business open? Of course not. A community without a grocery store is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to open a grocery store. A community without a grocery store that caters to a particular segment is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to open a grocery store that does. It is also an opportunity for an entrepreneur to open a grocery store that serves everyone, creating competition which is always good for the customer.

I do not follow your first two statements here... please clarify

Sure.

I may own the business and the property, and only have my immediate family running the business but I would still need to wash my hands after using the bathroom (by law) I would still have to keep the refrigerators and freezers at a specified temperature.

Voluntarily cutting off a source of revenue doesn't risk anyone getting sick.

I would be required to have a certain number of parking spaces. And on and on... all are laws to protect the public.

Voluntarily cutting off a source of revenue doesn't cause traffic jams.

when a store owner discriminates against potential customers, the only thing that he is doing is cutting off a source of revenue. Anything beyond that is someone's imagination working overtime.

Can we continue with our conversation on this topic?

I really want to know how you would resolve the inevitable segregation that would happen if the 11th section of the civil rights act of 1964 was repealed.

Do you mean Title 11? I not clear what you're getting at here. I don't want to misconstrue or be misconstrued.

TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 1101. In any proceeding for criminal contempt arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of this Act, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to a trial by jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in criminal cases. Upon conviction, the accused shall not be fined more than $1,000 or imprisoned for more than six months.

This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to the misbehavior, misconduct, or disobedience of any officer of the court in respect to writs, orders, or process of the court. No person shall be convicted of criminal contempt hereunder unless the act or omission constituting such contempt shall have been intentional, as required in other cases of criminal contempt.

Nor shall anything herein be construed to deprive courts of their power, by civil contempt proceedings, without a jury, to secure compliance with or to prevent obstruction of, as distinguished from punishment for violations of, any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court in accordance with the prevailing usages of law and equity, including the power of detention.

SEC. 1102. No person should be put twice in jeopardy under the laws of the United States for the same act or omission. For this reason, an acquittal or conviction in a prosecution for a specific crime under the laws of the United States shall bar a proceeding for criminal contempt, which is based upon the same act or omission and which arises under the provisions of this Act; and an acquittal or conviction in a proceeding for criminal contempt, which arises under the provisions of this Act, shall bar a prosecution for a specific crime under the laws of the United States based upon the same act or omission.

SEC. 1103. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General or of the United States or any agency or officer thereof under existing law to institute or intervene in any action or proceeding.

SEC. 1104. Nothing contained in any title of this Act shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which any such title operates to the exclusion of State laws on the same subject matter, nor shall any provision of this Act be construed as invalidating any provision of State law unless such provision is inconsistent with any of the purposes of this Act, or any provision thereof.

SEC. 1105. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 1106. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.



Signed July 2, 1964.

How would you correct or prevent the abuse of the civil rights to millions across the country?

I'm pretty sure we haven't agreed on even what a civil right is in this context. Is it a civil right to enter a person's private property without the owner's permission? I would say no.

 

[Tim]

If the grocer decides to close his doors then the community would go without. Would you try to force him to keep his business open? Of course not. A community without a grocery store is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to open a grocery store. A community without a grocery store that caters to a particular segment is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to open a grocery store that does. It is also an opportunity for an entrepreneur to open a grocery store that serves everyone, creating competition which is always good for the customer.

Sure.


when a store owner discriminates against potential customers, the only thing that he is doing is cutting off a source of revenue. Anything beyond that is someone's imagination working overtime.


Do you mean Title 11? I not clear what you're getting at here. I don't want to misconstrue or be misconstrued.


I'm pretty sure we haven't agreed on even what a civil right is in this context. Is it a civil right to enter a person's private property without the owner's permission? I would say no.

I meant section 10 which:

Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

And you talk about private ownership and civil rights. I argue that by opening a public restaurant you are serving the public and with this comes certain restrictions and laws you must follow. If you don't want to follow these laws and rules, then don't get into that particular business.

This is an interesting read from a lawyers website.

Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.
So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.
What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Do you disagree with the above?

This is the most important part of the statement that I fully agree with...

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service.

 

[Accountable]

You keep mixing what is with what ought to be. We can only have one conversation at a time, or at least that's how I would prefer it. If you want to discuss what is, then we can just shake hands and walk away because there isn't any real disagreement with what the law says.

I'm saying that the law, the CRA, goes too far. Government facilities and services must never discriminate against the citizens it is created to serve, and it's a damn shame that a law had to be passed to ensure it doesn't, but the law was absolutely necessary. But there's no reason a businessman shouldn't be able to shoot himself in the foot in any way he sees fit, as far as refusing service to anyone for any reason whatever. To do so only harms the business and business owner, not the customer. To go beyond government facilities and services and presume to tell an entrepreneur who he may or may not serve is simply too much, and any attempt at justifying such action is only rationalizing authoritarian action.

 

[Tim]

...But there's no reason a businessman shouldn't be able to shoot himself in the foot in any way he sees fit, as far as refusing service to anyone for any reason whatever. To do so only harms the business and business owner, not the customer....

I fully understand what IS the law today and what you would LIKE to see the law changed to. There is no confusion there.
It's just that I believe the law is correct as it stands and I was pointing out the reasons why.

Your above statement is patently false. It IS the customer that is hurt. The civil rights law was not enacted to protect business owners and to even suggest that is ludicrous. You have this false belief that the "free market" will rectify discrimination and that is not based in any fact at all.

Again I will refer back to my earlier point that there are MANY small towns that could not possibly support a whites only restaurant and a blacks only one. The town may only have a 10% population of a certain minority who would never have enough patrons to support any type of business. What do they do? Would you suggest they pack up and move several towns over where there are blacks only businesses?
What you stand for is segregation. You can dress it up anyway you like, but that's exactly what would happen and you're fine with it.

 

[Minor Axis]

You have this false belief that the "free market" will rectify discrimination and that is not based in any fact at all.

Exactly. As silly as saying lets do away with murder penalties because eventually humans will evolve into less murderous tendencies.

What you stand for is segregation. You can dress it up anyway you like, but that's exactly what would happen and you're fine with it.

Accountable believes in his right to discriminate if he wants to. There is no logical way to argue it any other way.

 

[Accountable]

I fully understand what IS the law today and what you would LIKE to see the law changed to. There is no confusion there.
It's just that I believe the law is correct as it stands and I was pointing out the reasons why.[\quote]'kay.

Your above statement is patently false. It IS the customer that is hurt.

In what way?

The civil rights law was not enacted to protect business owners and to even suggest that is ludicrous.

Agreed. That's why I didn't suggest it.

You have this false belief that the "free market" will rectify discrimination and that is not based in any fact at all.

Your definition of "rectify" in this context is likely miles from mine.

Again I will refer back to my earlier point that there are MANY small towns that could not possibly support a whites only restaurant and a blacks only one. The town may only have a 10% population of a certain minority who would never have enough patrons to support any type of business. What do they do? Would you suggest they pack up and move several towns over where there are blacks only businesses?

There are MANY small towns that could not support a restaurant at all. What do they do? Would you suggest that the government open a tax-funded restaurant? Perhaps you would like for the town to force their riches person to open one whether he wants to or not.

What you stand for is segregation. You can dress it up anyway you like, but that's exactly what would happen and you're fine with it.

What I stand for is liberty. That includes the liberty to be stupid in business. If that results in a segregated restaurant, so be it. I am foursquare against any type of discrimination when it comes to government facilities or services - services paid for with public tax dollars. Private businesses do not fit that category.

 

[Accountable]

Accountable believes in his right to discriminate if he wants to. There is no logical way to argue it any other way.

Absolutely correct. A right is something we hold without being granted it by government or anyone else. You and I both have the right to discriminate, and we exercise that right daily. OTZ also has this right. V can ban anyone for any reason whatsoever. She chooses not to. This is her right. It would be wrong for the government to intervene and take that right of choice from her. Do you disagree?

 

[Minor Axis]

Absolutely correct. A right is something we hold without being granted it by government or anyone else. You and I both have the right to discriminate, and we exercise that right daily. OTZ also has this right. V can ban anyone for any reason whatsoever. She chooses not to. This is her right. It would be wrong for the government to intervene and take that right of choice from her. Do you disagree?

Your vision of liberty is not mine.

BTW I know there are Federal laws regarding discrimination based on gender, race, and religion which can get you into deep trouble. I could be wrong, but my impression is that those laws (which I fully support) could be applicable if someone was thrown off a board just because they were of a certain race and not other reasons.

 

[Accountable]

Your vision of liberty is not mine.

BTW I know there are Federal laws regarding discrimination based on gender, race, and religion which can get you into deep trouble. I could be wrong, but my impression is that those laws (which I fully support) could be applicable if someone was thrown off a board just because they were of a certain race and not other reasons.

Trying to glean the motivation behind a banning reeks of thought police. Your vision of liberty is not liberty at all.

 

[Minor Axis]

Trying to glean the motivation behind a banning reeks of thought police. Your vision of liberty is not liberty at all.

And you vision of liberty is BS. Glean? Thought police? Ok, how about a forum that one of the rules state : No blacks allowed. As a white guy, no problem, yes? How about if you are fired at a retail job because a woman accuses you (a man) of something inappropriate, and the boss, a female, without talking to, fires you, this smacks of discrimination. I'm sure as the victim, you'd be fine with it as it's the price of liberty, right?

Obviously we don't agree. The conversation is no longer productive. (Was it ever?) I don't see myself EVER voting for a hard core libertarian although someone like Ron Paul seems to have more scruples than the entire Republican Party. If I was to bet, for the first time in your life regarding you liberty view, you'd be in the "minority".