Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 ^^The Civil Rights act does not say you cannot keep people off your private property or that private clubs have to accept everyone. That is why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against gay people and the KKK does not have to allow minorities to join. What it says is that businesses that offer services to the public, like gas stations and restaurants, cannot refuse to serve certain people based on race.
Originally Posted By DAR Right and if they do, then you punish them by not patronizing their business.
Originally Posted By DAR <<DAR, the more I think about this, the more backwards you're thinking is. You are advocating the position of racists in the 1950s. You're cheering the arrest of blacks who sat at white lunch counters in the deep south. That's seriously what you're advocating?>> I know, I know, you PERSONALLY think it's wrong (which is meaningless) but the practical effect is the same: A black person who went to a white's only restaurant would have to be arrested for trespassing if they refused to leave. That's what you're advocating. Astounding. And where do we draw the line? How about a black person who's refused treatment at a hospital? Cool with you too?>> No I'm advocating decent right minded citizens getting together and saying you know what we're hear how your operate and we don't want anything to do with your business.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No I'm advocating decent right minded citizens getting together and saying you know what we're hear how your operate and we don't want anything to do with your business.<< Really, you simply have to look back at our recent past to see that this didn't work. It isn't even debatable. Our own history is filled with any number of examples why just leaving it to the marketplace to decide does not seem to work.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's a reminder of what you get when you leave something as important as basic civil rights to sort themselves out, with no government protection: <a href="http://poplicks.com/images/segregationist.jpg" target="_blank">http://poplicks.com/images/seg...nist.jpg</a> Seriously, a lot of things are debatable and matters of opinion. But the need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't one of them.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm not calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act it's going to stay and it should. But I'd like to know the businesses that engage in discrimination so I can use it as a guide to not go there. So that I can tell others not to go there. I say expose these people for the bigots they are. Put a hurt on their lively hood. Geez ecdc, that doesn't sound read like I support these businesses, but I guess I wouldn't know because according to you I'm a racist. Don't ever accuse me of that again you miserable puke.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Post 27 is an example of why World Events has becoming less and less appealing to me lately. ecdc didn't call you a racist, he pointed out that the logic you were using is along the same line of reasoning segregationists argued back in the day. Slow down, read what someone actually says, and then react.
Originally Posted By DAR <<You are advocating the position of racists in the 1950s. You're cheering the arrest of blacks who sat at white lunch counters in the deep south. That's seriously what you're advocating?>> That's accusing me of being a racist. I don't take that accusation very lightly and I will call people on it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Don't ever accuse me of that again you miserable puke.> He really didn't do that, DAR. He's pointing out the logical effect of private business owners being able to discriminate on the basis of race, which you implied they ought to be able to do even though you'd personally think it was wrong (post 16) - they really could get people arrested for trespass if they refused to leave, just based on color (or religion, or whathaveyou). What you advocate sounds good in theory, but in practice it didn't work back then (and certainly there were liberals who advocated boycotts of such businesses before the law was changed) and even today it's hard to have an impact. Consider: various groups target various businesses that they consider bad actors in various ways - discriminatory hiring (i.e. Cracker Barrel blatantly and even proudly stating they wouldn't hire gay people), environmental bad actors (I'm sure everyone can think of a few examples), working with governments that are awful (Sudan, Myanmar, etc.)... and in this internet age it's far easier to get the word out and organize a boycott than ever before. And yet, VERY rarely do these boycotts amount to anything. The Cracker Barrel one didn't have much impact, most companies go right on working with repressive governments (or sometimes form subsidiaries to do so more stealthily), etc. etc. Sometimes enough pressure can cause a company to change its ways, but not often. Remember the Southern Baptist boycott of Disney because Disney dared to give its gay employees spousal benefits for their partners? Really brought Disney to its knees, didn't it? And that was a HUGE group of people who got a lot of press about it too. Trouble is, few customers seem to care that much about these social things. Southern Baptists who might have been very anti-gay nonetheless wanted to buy Disney products, so they did. Pro-gay people who might have been sympathetic to the CB boycott, nonetheless kept going there if they liked the place or it was close and convenient (I'm talking about one of my own sisters here). People may know what the Sudanese government is doing to the poor people of Darfur, but their eyes glaze over if you talk about divesting or not patronizing companies that do business with that government. So even if you think "word will get out" about a discriminatory business, in practice that isn't likely to get them to change their ways. Hell, there are some places where some people would see it as a PLUS - don't kid yourself. If you're serious about "I'd like to know the businesses that engage in discrimination so I can use it as a guide to not go there," then you can do some research online and find out about them and act accordingly as an individual. And I hope you do. But guess what - because of the law that disallows what you think ought to be allowed even if you disagree with it - you won't FIND many places that blatantly discriminate any more, at least on the basis of race.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***No I'm advocating decent right minded citizens getting together and saying you know what we're hear how your operate and we don't want anything to do with your business*** Have you always been this naive, or did you sustain brain damage at some point? ***<<You are advocating the position of racists in the 1950s. You're cheering the arrest of blacks who sat at white lunch counters in the deep south. That's seriously what you're advocating?>> That's accusing me of being a racist*** The easy way to avoid that is by not spewing racist talking points (I suppose you're also scratching your head, wondering why Rand Paul is taking so much flak). ***But I'd like to know the businesses that engage in discrimination so I can use it as a guide to not go there*** You can't, because they can't. But don't worry, it's easy enough to "find racists" if you want to DAR, without reverting back to the Jim Crow era as you seem to want.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Mr. X, I think DAR is naive about what a Paul-like way of doing things (or his own "just don't patronize those businesses" way) would look like in practice absent government teeth, but it's not fair to make the leap to "racist." Yes, the bad old days might never have ended had we done things that way (and I made that point first myself), but I think DAR just doesn't quite get that, rather than being actively racist or "wanting" to go back there - an unfair charge IMO.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's accusing me of being a racist. I don't take that accusation very lightly and I will call people on it.<< Thats the practical result of what you're saying, DAR. I didn't call you a racist (Whoa! Color me shocked, DAR accusing someone of saying something they didn't - who'd a thunk it!) But it is cowardice to argue for something, as you did, that in practicality will result in blacks being jailed for going to white-only establishments, then saying, "Now I don't like this, so don't blame me." Do you think blacks should be jailed for going to white only establishments? If not, cut out the dumb ass DAR crap and have the courage to stand up for something for once instead of name calling, temper tantrums, whack-a-mole games, and otherwise general stupidity. My six year old can see the absurdity of what you argued, so why can't you?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***but it's not fair to make the leap to "racist."*** That's why I gave him the benefit of the doubt by calling him naive (INCREDIBLY naive, actually). Saying that he's spewing racist talking points, well that's just a fact. His claim, as ECDC points out, is exactly the same one vehement segregationists used to try and quash equal rights. It's racist propaganda.
Originally Posted By DAR No I don't think they should be jailed, I never said that. I never argued that. What I've been saying is that if this how a business owner wants to act let them act that way. They're the one's that look foolish in the end. They're the one's that come out looking like the bigots they are. Let the business owners suffer for their pigheadedness and refusal to think like someone in the 21st century. But you believe what you want to believe. I read it as you calling me a racist and the you want to lie that you didn't accuse me , that's a great lesson to teach your kids. It's becoming more and more evident that Doug was right about many of you and that you twist the arguments to fight your agenda's and simply make up lies about people. If that's how you choose to live that's you choice, me I think I'll pass.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***No I don't think they should be jailed, I never said that. I never argued that.*** You did, though. By advocating that bigots be allowed to discriminate (whatever your reasons), you are insisting they have the right to refuse any customers for any reason. Right? So then, what happens when a "refused" customer refuses to leave? Legally speaking (in your world), that's trespass. The cops have to arrest the guy. It HAS HAPPENED, DAR. Read some more history, bro.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But you believe what you want to believe. I read it as you calling me a racist and the you want to lie that you didn't accuse me , that's a great lesson to teach your kids.<< Except three different people also pointed out to you that I didn't call you a racist. But you have this bizarre ability to take the simplest of of words and turn them into something else entirely, so I'm not really surprised.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Can't we all just get along? X, the argument DAR is advancing is not the same racist one from 50 years ago. Then they were quite blatant about not wanting to mix with an"inferior race." His argument now is the same as some modern day racists make (that sounds more reasonable even though it isn't when you look closer) but that doesn't make DAR racist, and o don't believe that for a second. And DAR, ecdc did not call you racist, and to say he did is itself unfair.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***X, the argument DAR is advancing is not the same racist one from 50 years ago. Then they were quite blatant about not wanting to mix with an"inferior race."*** Just as there are still blatant racists out there today talking about inferiority, so too were the more stealthy kind back then couching their arguments in "private property" and "freedom" terms. It's all the same loathsome doctrines, just different people shouting them.
