well but that does not answer the OP's question.
if jews complain about Germans boycotting them back in 1935, jews cannot boycott skinheads in 2013.
it is that simple really.
so: jews should be forced to serve anybody who is going to pay the price they demand for their service.
Topic: Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead? - page 5. (Read 9157 times)
If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".
And if he knew you were using that quote in this context.... 
If the skinhead is behaving in a civil manner then I believe that he should serve him. It is unlikely though that a skinhead would go dine and support a jewish restaurant though. Ghandi once said, "You need to be the change you wish to see in the world".
how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?
If he wanted to, the skinhead would be well within his rights to expel them.It's like this: It's your property. You can decide who can, and who cannot, eat there. It's as simple as that.
Depends on where you live. In the US, freedom of association is a pretty well recognized concept except for when it comes to employment. There are also zero hate speech laws. In many places of Europe however, if you kick somebody out of your restaurant and he happens to be a different color from you or a homosexual, he has a pretty good case for a lawsuit against you, possibly even criminal action, even if that isn't why you actually kicked him out.
I bet, if a skinhead refuses to serve a jew in his own restaurant, the jew won't go down quietly. LOL
esp. in New York City aka Hymietown LOL
esp. in New York City aka Hymietown LOL
how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?
If he wanted to, the skinhead would be well within his rights to expel them.It's like this: It's your property. You can decide who can, and who cannot, eat there. It's as simple as that.
Depends on where you live. In the US, freedom of association is a pretty well recognized concept except for when it comes to employment. There are also zero hate speech laws. In many places of Europe however, if you kick somebody out of your restaurant and he happens to be a different color from you or a homosexual, he has a pretty good case for a lawsuit against you, possibly even criminal action, even if that isn't why you actually kicked him out.
how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?
If he wanted to, the skinhead would be well within his rights to expel them.It's like this: It's your property. You can decide who can, and who cannot, eat there. It's as simple as that.
how about a jew visiting a restaurant run by a skinhead?
Did the skinhead do it something to you? If not, and if he is a good consumer, I think he should be treated as a normal consumer.
Treat others as you would like to be treated
Treat others as you would like to be treated
Honestly I think people these days are too paranoid about racism. The unfair campaign for example is just plain asinine, when I saw that commercial for the first time I felt like whipping my dick out and slapping them all across the face.
It's stupid how even the most benign actions you can take these days can be interpreted as racism. And worse is when you try to confront it, THAT is labeled as racism. If you want to silence somebody these days, all you have to do is accuse them of being racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
It's stupid how even the most benign actions you can take these days can be interpreted as racism. And worse is when you try to confront it, THAT is labeled as racism. If you want to silence somebody these days, all you have to do is accuse them of being racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
I've given a lot of thought to racism. I'm repulsed by it, but I don't think it morally wrong, at least not initially.
Just as it's not morally wrong to believe the moon landing was a hoax, it's not morally wrong to believe in the superiority of a race.
Racism is factually wrong.
Just as it's morally wrong to shoot Buzz Aldrin, it's morally wrong to shoot a Jewish person.
When violence is involved for racial reasons, it becomes morally wrong. Most of the disgust with racism comes from a combination of its obvious factual incorrectness and the moral wrongs committed in its name (lynching, the Holocaust, etc).
Forcing someone not to murder is OK, because the force is less abhorrent than the prevented act. Forcing someone to serve another person is not OK, because the force involves violence which is worse than the initial refusal of service.
Well said. Just as it's not morally wrong to believe the moon landing was a hoax, it's not morally wrong to believe in the superiority of a race.
Racism is factually wrong.
Just as it's morally wrong to shoot Buzz Aldrin, it's morally wrong to shoot a Jewish person.
When violence is involved for racial reasons, it becomes morally wrong. Most of the disgust with racism comes from a combination of its obvious factual incorrectness and the moral wrongs committed in its name (lynching, the Holocaust, etc).
Forcing someone not to murder is OK, because the force is less abhorrent than the prevented act. Forcing someone to serve another person is not OK, because the force involves violence which is worse than the initial refusal of service.
I've given a lot of thought to racism. I'm repulsed by it, but I don't think it morally wrong, at least not initially.
Just as it's not morally wrong to believe the moon landing was a hoax, it's not morally wrong to believe in the superiority of a race.
Racism is factually wrong.
Just as it's morally wrong to shoot Buzz Aldrin, it's morally wrong to shoot a Jewish person.
When violence is involved for racial reasons, it becomes morally wrong. Most of the disgust with racism comes from a combination of its obvious factual incorrectness and the moral wrongs committed in its name (lynching, the Holocaust, etc).
Forcing someone not to murder is OK, because the force is less abhorrent than the prevented act. Forcing someone to serve another person is not OK, because the force involves violence which is worse than the initial refusal of service.
Just as it's not morally wrong to believe the moon landing was a hoax, it's not morally wrong to believe in the superiority of a race.
Racism is factually wrong.
Just as it's morally wrong to shoot Buzz Aldrin, it's morally wrong to shoot a Jewish person.
When violence is involved for racial reasons, it becomes morally wrong. Most of the disgust with racism comes from a combination of its obvious factual incorrectness and the moral wrongs committed in its name (lynching, the Holocaust, etc).
Forcing someone not to murder is OK, because the force is less abhorrent than the prevented act. Forcing someone to serve another person is not OK, because the force involves violence which is worse than the initial refusal of service.
Why in the world would a skinhead eat in a Jewish restaurant?
I still can't decide. My knee-jerk reaction was "sure, I can refuse service to anyone I wish in my restaurant!" - but then, this restaurant operates within a public realm, and "public" has decided that it's not that simple. My premises are within their premises, so to say, so their rules apply. If I don't like it, I can pack my restaurant and move to the promised land. Or I can urge the public to change the rules, which may in fact be the best solution in this case (is this what RP argued?).
Or, here's an idea: If "the public" disagrees with how you use your property, they don't have to eat there. If enough of "the public" disagree with your practices, and too few of them agree, you'll have to change those practices, or go out of business. 
I still can't decide. My knee-jerk reaction was "sure, I can refuse service to anyone I wish in my restaurant!" - but then, this restaurant operates within a public realm, and "public" has decided that it's not that simple. My premises are within their premises, so to say, so their rules apply. If I don't like it, I can pack my restaurant and move to the promised land. Or I can urge the public to change the rules, which may in fact be the best solution in this case (is this what RP argued?).
Personally I believe fully in freedom of association.
so did Adolf Hitler presumably.
Not sure what you're getting at with that statement, but if it is what I think it is (e.g. against unrestricted freedom of association,) then that argument doesn't really work.
Hitler believed in a lot of things that many believe in today. For example, he strongly believed that nobody but the government should have access to firearms. That describes basically all of modern Europe as well as most of the Democratic party.
Just because somebody happens to agree with hitler on one particular subject doesn't make them the same as hitler, nor does that mean they agree with fascism.
If that isn't the argument you are trying to make, then I apologize, just your comment is a bit vague.
Personally I believe fully in freedom of association.
so did Adolf Hitler presumably.
so why do the jews complain then about Germany?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
so why do the jews complain then about Germany?
Personally I believe fully in freedom of association. If you don't want to hire or serve a person for any reason at all, that is your right. Personally I'd like to have the business of even the weirdos, so I see no reason to discriminate.
Jump to: