stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
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.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
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.