The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:24 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Any business or person should be able to refuse association or contract with any other business or person for whatever reason they choose. There are organizations that do exist and their membership is based solely on race.

It isn't possible to enforce anything to the contrary without quotas.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Corolinth wrote:
Can a restaurant refuse service to blacks because they're black? For example, suppose as a restaurant owner, I believe that God cursed the children of Cain with black skin. Can I refuse to allow blacks into my establishment on the grounds of my deeply held religious belief?

According to the Bible, being black is just as immoral as being gay. In fact, you are black because you are immoral. So, can I refuse service to blacks?


In my opinion, because restaurants take up real estate and are given permission by the town to be there, so access should be open to anybody who isn't disruptive.

If you order something online, I think the rules should be different. The seller should be able to choose who to provide service to.

edit: clarity


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:56 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Do these images depict business policies that are in compliance with United States law?:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:39 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
My civil rights history is a bit fuzzy, did those resteraunts segregate out of prefference of the owners, or by state law?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:55 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
It's funny how quickly government overreach ceased to be a concern when it's an opportunity to outlaw freedom of religious conscience.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
OK, hang on...let's take this down a notch by changing the point of contention.

Let's say there are two rival schools in a single area and a big football game is coming up. We'll call the two teams the Flibbers and the Flobbers, because I suck at making up names.

A die-hard supporter of the Flibbers wants to get a bunch of T-shirts printed up so that he and his Flibber-loving buddies can wear them to the game to show support of their team. The owner of the print shop to which he goes happens to be an equally die-hard supporter of the Flobbers. Sports tensions being what they are, he refuses to print something in support of the opposing team, even knowing that by refusing, he's turning down money and potentially future business.

Does anyone have the right to force the Flobber-loving print shop owner to print T-shirts that support the opposing team? Should anyone?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:06 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
FarSky wrote:
OK, hang on...let's take this down a notch by changing the point of contention.

Let's say there are two rival schools in a single area and a big football game is coming up. We'll call the two teams the Flibbers and the Flobbers, because I suck at making up names.

A die-hard supporter of the Flibbers wants to get a bunch of T-shirts printed up so that he and his Flibber-loving buddies can wear them to the game to show support of their team. The owner of the print shop to which he goes happens to be an equally die-hard supporter of the Flobbers. Sports tensions being what they are, he refuses to print something in support of the opposing team, even knowing that by refusing, he's turning down money and potentially future business.

Does anyone have the right to force the Flobber-loving print shop owner to print T-shirts that support the opposing team? Should anyone?


The government should absolutely not force the Flobberlover to print the t-shirts for the heathen Flibberfans.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:09 pm
Posts: 733
Forcing this shop to make those t-shirts wouldn't be any different than forcing a black shop owner to make KKK t-shirts...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Coro,

It's been said already. If the guy was buying shirts for his yacht club it wouldn't be a problem.

The business is refusing to make a specific shirt, not refusing to serve a customer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:19 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
FarSky wrote:
OK, hang on...let's take this down a notch by changing the point of contention.

Let's say there are two rival schools in a single area and a big football game is coming up. We'll call the two teams the Flibbers and the Flobbers, because I suck at making up names.

A die-hard supporter of the Flibbers wants to get a bunch of T-shirts printed up so that he and his Flibber-loving buddies can wear them to the game to show support of their team. The owner of the print shop to which he goes happens to be an equally die-hard supporter of the Flobbers. Sports tensions being what they are, he refuses to print something in support of the opposing team, even knowing that by refusing, he's turning down money and potentially future business.

Does anyone have the right to force the Flobber-loving print shop owner to print T-shirts that support the opposing team? Should anyone?


The schools are public schools and the printshop owner is private, I'm assuming. No, no one should be able to force him to print anything. The only thing that might restrict his First Amendment rights are libel laws, I suppose.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:21 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Midgen wrote:
Coro,

It's been said already. If the guy was buying shirts for his yacht club it wouldn't be a problem.

The business is refusing to make a specific shirt, not refusing to serve a customer.


Beyond that, why shouldn't anyone be able to refuse to serve a customer but be able to not fulfill a certain request? Should businesses be able to refuse service to members of the Westboro Baptist Church? Refusing service based on ethnicity, sex, religious creed or whatever might be unsavory but I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:23 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
You know, it would be hilarious to see the Westboro Baptist Church forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:33 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
This is like going to a hindu cafe owner and demanding a roast beef sandwich.

As a customer you can buy what ever is on offer, but have no right to demand something they don't want to provide. I'm pretty sure if I tried to sue an airline for not flying to a destination of my chosing, which is not part of their route, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:40 am
Posts: 3188
Corolinth wrote:
Can a restaurant refuse service to blacks because they're black? For example, suppose as a restaurant owner, I believe that God cursed the children of Cain with black skin. Can I refuse to allow blacks into my establishment on the grounds of my deeply held religious belief?

According to the Bible, being black is just as immoral as being gay. In fact, you are black because you are immoral. So, can I refuse service to blacks?



Yes a restaurant can do that. As a private business I feel they should be able to do that.

But a smart business owner shouldn't do that if they want to continue to have business. I believe it's the businesses right to run their business how they want. But I also believe that a person who did not like how that business is run should make other patrons aware of it and vote them into dust with their wallets.

Not by suing though. Private services are a privilege, not a right.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!


Last edited by Numbuk on Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 411
Corolinth wrote:
According to the Bible, being black is just as immoral as being gay. In fact, you are black because you are immoral. So, can I refuse service to blacks?


Can you tell me where the bible says this?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:18 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
For all its other flaws, the bible is fairly blind as to skin color. I'd say that this is amazing, except it was written by a mostly beige people who could be almost any shade between black and white.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:20 am
Posts: 1037
Corolinth wrote:
Image


Seriously? A greengrocer's apostrophe? Please do not post that offensive drivel here.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Jhorra wrote:
Can you tell me where the bible says this?


I actually believe it was in Genesis, the children who clothed their naked father because they were embarrassed, so they clothed him and they were cast out, and their skin was darkened to mark them as those who would serve others for all time because of their. I may be a bit off on the location, and the precise details of the story may be escaping me... but that was roughly where/for what.

It was one of the points of contention I had prior to the understanding that the bible was written by man (fallible) and not by a perfect being.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
darksiege wrote:
I actually believe it was in Genesis, the children who clothed their naked father because they were embarrassed, so they clothed him and they were cast out, and their skin was darkened to mark them as those who would serve others for all time because of their. I may be a bit off on the location, and the precise details of the story may be escaping me... but that was roughly where/for what.


I've heard this before. You're referring to the three sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Note the curse and blackened skin was an idea introduced only in recent centuries, used to justify slavery, not one from the bible itself.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Yeah Talya, that is it... I believe King James was the one who added the blackening of the skin... thinking back on it

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:34 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
I was actually referring to the Mormon practice which was revoked in the seventies.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?fla ... transcript

Spoiler:
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.

(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.

(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.

(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.

SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.

In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.

TL;DR - 1963 Civil Rights act uses the commerce clause and the 14th amendment to justify outlawing racial (and religious, etc) discrimination in places of 'public accommodation' - hotels, restaurants, etc.

But a) this isn't a place of public accommodation, b) isn't race, color, religion, or national origin so i'm not sure what legal ground they're suing on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Civil Rights - forcing people to perform work and services against their will since 1964.

(no, I am not anti-civil rights laws. They are a necessary evil, but should be highly focused and used sparingly.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Civil Rights - forcing people to perform work and services against their will since 1964.

(no, I am not anti-civil rights laws. They are a necessary evil, but should be highly focused and used sparingly.)


Well alternatively they can shut down their business if they don't want to comply with the civil rights laws.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:43 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
why would you want to do business with someone who doesn't want to do business with you? Its not like there are not other TShirt manufacturers?

There may be only one bus service, or limited hotels in a region, but T-Shirt companies are everywhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 261 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group