Civil Right not a Civil Right

[stealthyeliminator]

Sorry STEALTH, but you have it wrong. they have the privilege of law, to expel a legal carrier from their business. when you open a "public accommodation" business you are subject to all kinds of laws that you have no control over



EYE you sound like the people that would have busted the heads of the "sit ins" at the Woolsworth in Greensboro NC, or you would also like to have broken Rosa Park's arms for not going to the back of the bus (BTW the bus company was private owned, but the law was the Government). are you the one that dump the milk on one of their head?
why do you hate black people so much. was there something in your past?

there is no property rights in America

I should have noted that I wasn't really talking about the legality of the issue, just the morality of it. Probably a portion of the members here don't care about this aspect very much, or at least don't care to discuss it here. I, on the other hand, think it's very important. Legality has nothing to do with rights. Some rights can be legally protected, but that doesn't mean there is any real relationship between a right and a law. Man can make and change and overrule law, but he can do nothing to manipulate what rights a person has.

So, when I said "they should be able to" I meant that, IMO, it would be within their right to do so, whether it was morally reprehensible or legal or not.

It may seem like a contradiction to say that "it's moral" for a property owner to have the power to discriminate against a certain person or group (if I said that, I can't remember or be bothered to re-read the thread again), then turn around and say that discrimination is immoral. Basically, what is meant, is that it's moral for a property owner to have the power to discriminate, whether he actually does it or not. It would generally be immoral for someone to use coercion against the property owner in retaliation to discrimination alone, IMO. It may be immoral/unethical to discriminate, in a manner such as saying don't come into my business with a gun, but it isn't a violation of another persons rights/liberty such that physical intervention would be justified.

So, legally speaking, I have no idea what a property owner can or can't do in which states as far as denying service or trespassing individuals/groups goes.

 

[eye95]

I, too, was discussing the morality of the issue. But PB's snark makes me believe the he does not care about the property rights and association rights of others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[DocWalker]

Doesn't matter why, they're within their right to do so. I mean, maybe they 'shouldn't' but no one has the right to force them to do otherwise

Ok riddle me this batman.


1. A shop owner discriminates against a OC'er that is just going about his/her day doing what is protected under the US Constitution. People yell and screem that it is the right of the shop keeper to keep anyone out he wants to "it is his right" as it is private property.

2. A shop owner discriminates against a Homosexual couple by refusing to serve them and tells them to leave, being gay isn't protected under the US Constitution or gay marriage would be legal in every state. People scream and yell that the shop keeper needs to be put out of buisness as he is discriminating against the gay couple.

Why is there a double standard?

Why is the one that is protected by the US Constitution EVIL and the one that isn't OK?

If a shop keeper can't refuse serving one group than why can they refuse the other group?

I have yet to see someone give a good answer to these questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/oregon-gay-cab-driver-permit_n_3796604.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Florist-sued-for-refusing-service-to-gay-couple-202241361.html

 

[JamesCanby]

I, too, was discussing the morality of the issue. But PB's snark makes me believe the he does not care about the property rights and association rights of others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

How can PB care about something that he believes does not exist -- private property rights? Seems to me that he's ignoring reality, but he and some others consistently beat that drum. It also seems to me that it's time to just ignore that silliness.

 

[eye95]

Ok riddle me this batman.


1. A shop owner discriminates against a OC'er that is just going about his/her day doing what is protected under the US Constitution. People yell and screem that it is the right of the shop keeper to keep anyone out he wants to "it is his right" as it is private property.

2. A shop owner discriminates against a Homosexual couple by refusing to serve them and tells them to leave, being gay isn't protected under the US Constitution or gay marriage would be legal in every state. People scream and yell that the shop keeper needs to be put out of buisness as he is discriminating against the gay couple.

Why is there a double standard?

Why is the one that is protected by the US Constitution EVIL and the one that isn't OK?

If a shop keeper can't refuse serving one group than why can they refuse the other group?

I have yet to see someone give a good answer to these questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/oregon-gay-cab-driver-permit_n_3796604.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Florist-sued-for-refusing-service-to-gay-couple-202241361.html

I don't advocate a double-standard. True property rights means that the owner can deny entry to anyone for any reason. Color, homosexuality, carry, religion, sex...whatever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[DocWalker]

I don't advocate a double-standard. True property rights means that the owner can deny entry to anyone for any reason. Color, homosexuality, carry, religion, sex...whatever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I agree but out of all the reasons you quoted Color, Homosexuality, carry, religion, sex...whatever only "carry" gets a pass from the goverment and the media when it comes to pressure on the buisness. Of those you mention only homosexuality is NOT a protection by the US Constitution or Admendments but the fact remains either a buisness should be allowed to choose who they do buisness with or not.

The uproar of the "whites only" signs of the 1960's is one example. Can you imagine a buisness with one of those today? The media would make the buisness into a villian, the goverment would have the IRS and all the pressure they could muster to put them out of buisness. But it is all right to discriminate against an OC'er....that is ok.

It needs to be all or none...

It either matters that you have "shoes and shirt" or it doesn't.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Ok riddle me this batman.


1. A shop owner discriminates against a OC'er that is just going about his/her day doing what is protected under the US Constitution. People yell and screem that it is the right of the shop keeper to keep anyone out he wants to "it is his right" as it is private property.

2. A shop owner discriminates against a Homosexual couple by refusing to serve them and tells them to leave, being gay isn't protected under the US Constitution or gay marriage would be legal in every state. People scream and yell that the shop keeper needs to be put out of buisness as he is discriminating against the gay couple.

Why is there a double standard?

Why is the one that is protected by the US Constitution EVIL and the one that isn't OK?

If a shop keeper can't refuse serving one group than why can they refuse the other group?

I have yet to see someone give a good answer to these questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/oregon-gay-cab-driver-permit_n_3796604.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Florist-sued-for-refusing-service-to-gay-couple-202241361.html

I don't have a double standard. I said it doesn't matter why. You need to understand that there is a difference between the morality of an act and the legality of an act, and that intervention is only justified when you violate the rights of another. You are not violating the rights of a gay man by telling him to get off your property because he has no right to be there against your will. You aren't forcing him to turn heterosexual, and that would be a violation of his rights. He has no right to impose an association on you that you don't desire by forcing you to do business with him.

Does this align with law? No, probably not. But law is just law, it doesn't define right or wrong, it just let's you know what the government will come after you for.

If you're just saying the law should be changed to be more consistent, I agree with you there. Preferably changed in favor of property rights

 

[georg jetson]

I don't have a double standard. I said it doesn't matter why. You need to understand that there is a difference between the morality of an act and the legality of an act, and that intervention is only justified when you violate the rights of another. You are not violating the rights of a gay man by telling him to get off your property because he has no right to be there against your will. You aren't forcing him to turn heterosexual, and that would be a violation of his rights. He has no right to impose an association on you that you don't desire by forcing you to do business with him.

Does this align with law? No, probably not. But law is just law, it doesn't define right or wrong, it just let's you know what the government will come after you for.

If you're just saying the law should be changed to be more consistent, I agree with you there. Preferably changed in favor of property rights

Actually it does align with the law in our constitutional republic. The fed gov has not been given the power to violate property rights and can only deprive one of property rights through due process. It is the civil rights statutes that are illegal.

Since a majority of citizens decided that a business refusing service based on race, etc. was immoral, then they did what they always do... give more power to the government regardless of the loss of liberty. "Help us oh great and moral government!!!" they say over and over.

 

[DocWalker]

I don't have a double standard. I said it doesn't matter why. You need to understand that there is a difference between the morality of an act and the legality of an act, and that intervention is only justified when you violate the rights of another. You are not violating the rights of a gay man by telling him to get off your property because he has no right to be there against your will. You aren't forcing him to turn heterosexual, and that would be a violation of his rights. He has no right to impose an association on you that you don't desire by forcing you to do business with him.

Does this align with law? No, probably not. But law is just law, it doesn't define right or wrong, it just let's you know what the government will come after you for.

If you're just saying the law should be changed to be more consistent, I agree with you there. Preferably changed in favor of property rights

1. You aren't forcing him to turn heterosexual, and that would be a violation of his rights.

????HUH?????

2. He has no right to impose an association on you that you don't desire by forcing you to do business with him.

But he is and he is backed by the media and goverment.

3. Does this align with law? No, probably not. But law is just law, it doesn't define right or wrong, it just let's you know what the government will come after you for.

You still didn't answer the questions. I get the idea you would like to have private proporty owners and buisness given the ability to discriminate. Do you support bringing back the "whites only" signs for private buisnesses? Just asking?

As someone that owned a buisness well wife did, We didn't discriminate, if someone bounced a check than it was cash from then on. It would have been easy to be selective and not serve people that annoyed us but it wasn't good buisness. I say take goverment and the law out of it. If a buisness wants to discriminate against a group, race, or age let them. If the free market lets them thrive than ok, my thoery is they will fail due to bad press and boycotts.

Here are some places that don't allow children and it is their right. If there is a need for them they will make money, if not than they will go out of buisness.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013...ed-away-from-restaurant-over-no-child-policy/


http://blog.chron.com/momhouston/20...-in-restaurants-in-airplanes-and-communities/

How about a shirt?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/0...s-due-to-father-police-shirt/?intcmp=obinsite

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question(s)

I thought you were asking why I have a double standard, but I don't think I do. Maybe you were asking why the law is inconsistent? If so, I'm not sure, but I don't think it's my fault, lol!

 

[eye95]

I agree but out of all the reasons you quoted Color, Homosexuality, carry, religion, sex...whatever only "carry" gets a pass from the goverment and the media when it comes to pressure on the buisness. Of those you mention only homosexuality is NOT a protection by the US Constitution or Admendments but the fact remains either a buisness should be allowed to choose who they do buisness with or not.

The uproar of the "whites only" signs of the 1960's is one example. Can you imagine a buisness with one of those today? The media would make the buisness into a villian, the goverment would have the IRS and all the pressure they could muster to put them out of buisness. But it is all right to discriminate against an OC'er....that is ok.

It needs to be all or none...

It either matters that you have "shoes and shirt" or it doesn't.

That the government has agreed that it will not infringe on the RKBA (although it decidedly does) does not mean that they can force others to not infringe without infringing on their rights. So as far as a property owner being able to exercise his property rights and association rights, I don't care if the government agrees not to infringe those rights (BTW, it does), private property owners should be able to exercise those rights, even if it means that those entering the property agree not to exercise theirs!

That is the only way that Liberty can work. Anything else requires that government dictates where and under what circumstances one must/may exercise their rights. In such a case, they are no longer rights, but government-endowed privileges.

 

[eye95]

I don't have a double standard. I said it doesn't matter why. You need to understand that there is a difference between the morality of an act and the legality of an act, and that intervention is only justified when you violate the rights of another. You are not violating the rights of a gay man by telling him to get off your property because he has no right to be there against your will. You aren't forcing him to turn heterosexual, and that would be a violation of his rights. He has no right to impose an association on you that you don't desire by forcing you to do business with him.

Does this align with law? No, probably not. But law is just law, it doesn't define right or wrong, it just let's you know what the government will come after you for.

If you're just saying the law should be changed to be more consistent, I agree with you there. Preferably changed in favor of property rights

Man, you said that so much better than I did.

 

[eye95]

DocW: YES! I unequivocally support a property owner's right to post a "Whites Only" sign! It is immoral. It is wrong. It is stupid. But, it IS his right, one that is currently denied by law. But a right being denied by law does not stop it from being a right. Gun laws are proof of that.

 

[DocWalker]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question(s)

I thought you were asking why I have a double standard, but I don't think I do. Maybe you were asking why the law is inconsistent? If so, I'm not sure, but I don't think it's my fault, lol!

Ok let me put it another way. If your a cop would you....arrest someone for trespass that was OCing in a buisness that didn't allow firearms? yes or no?

If yes; would you be ok with supporting a buisness owner putting up signs that say "whites only" or "no gays allowed"? yes or no?

If NO that a buisness owner shouldn't have the right to put up those signs or any sign that excludes a group than you have a double standard. The double standard comes from not supporting a buisness right to post "no carry" but not "whites only" signs.
The double standard comes from your arresting a person for tresspass that is an OC'er but not supporting

If you say YES the buisness should be able to put up the signs then you have a double standard. The double standard comes from supporting a buisness right to post any sign but still endorsing the trespass of the OCer by arresting the OCer.

If you say you are just following the law and/or doing your job then you are part of the problem. Find a different job that doesn't cause someone to be a hypocrite. I'm not saying you are but if you would arrest someone for ocing but not sexual orientation or the color of their skin within the same context ie. Business doesn't want to serve them then you have a double standard regardless of what some law said. Blindly following someone, some regime, or some law is what a lot of guards and German soldiers claimed while giving a certain population free showers.

 

[eye95]

If I were a cop, I would be duty-bound to arrest a trespasser.

At the moment, it is lawful to trespass a carrier (as it should be).

At the moment, it is unlawful to trespass a black man for being black (as it should NOT be, morally).

So, in the first case, I would arrest. In the second, I would not--but only because it would be unlawful to do so, errantly IMO.

 

[davidmcbeth]

If I were a cop, I would be duty-bound to arrest a trespasser.

At the moment, it is lawful to trespass a carrier (as it should be).

At the moment, it is unlawful to trespass a black man for being black (as it should NOT be, morally).

So, in the first case, I would arrest. In the second, I would not--but only because it would be unlawful to do so, errantly IMO.

Someone made you say DUTY hahahaha.

Really, they have no duty, What if he doesn't arrest a trespasser if he is duty bound to arrest? He would go to jail, right? 'cause that's the penalty for not performing a duty or following an order. Oh wait, no .. the max. penalty is to lose his job. He's still a freeman. Learn what a "duty" is & you'll see the logic.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I don't advocate a double-standard. True property rights means that the owner can deny entry to anyone for any reason. Color, homosexuality, carry, religion, sex...whatever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

DING DING you're right!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Sorry STEALTH, but you have it wrong. they have the privilege of law, to expel a legal carrier from their business. when you open a "public accommodation" business you are subject to all kinds of laws that you have no control over



EYE you sound like the people that would have busted the heads of the "sit ins" at the Woolsworth in Greensboro NC, or you would also like to have broken Rosa Park's arms for not going to the back of the bus (BTW the bus company was private owned, but the law was the Government). are you the one that dump the milk on one of their head?
why do you hate black people so much. was there something in your past?

there is no property rights in America

Jim Crow laws were forced upon the population whether the private owners wanted it or not. Plessy vs. Ferguson was government intervention that helped thwart societal evolution and keep racist laws in existence against the owners of establishment, and since the best way to get over bigotry is association this set back relations between ethnic backgrounds for decades to come....including what was going on when Rosa Parks was asked to move.

 

[OC for ME]

Discrimination? No.

If the citizen were to leave their firearm in the car then it is very likely the citizen would be welcome to spend money in that anti-gun business. It is not anti-liberty, it is anti-gun.....think about it for a few moments and try to separate your love of firearms from your disdain for those who do not love firearms as you do.

You could be trespassed and not arrested if the cop was more liberty centric than not. But, if you go back into the business to prove a point then be prepared for a ride at the tax payers expense.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Discrimination? No.

If the citizen were to leave their firearm in the car then it is very likely the citizen would be welcome to spend money in that anti-gun business. It is not anti-liberty, it is anti-gun.....think about it for a few moments and try to separate your love of firearms from your disdain for those who do not love firearms as you do.

You could be trespassed and not arrested if the cop was more liberty centric than not. But, if you go back into the business to prove a point then be prepared for a ride at the tax payers expense.

+1 Liberty means accepting others will have views and actions and rights we disagree with.