Topic: Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead? - page 8. (Read 9207 times)

You're the only troll here, pal. You don't understand what principle means. Please read MoonShadow's post

mace

Let me whip out the troll mase.

And all jews are OWNERS? That, sir, is even more offensive.

He could also post a sign on his door requiring that all who enter wearing a tie will have it cut off and nailed to the wall before being seated, but that isn't a legally enforcible notice.  It only has authority upon those that recongnize that it has any such authority.

And no, I didn't just make that one up.  The cut tie scenario actually happened.

No OWNERS only care about money. And if they don't, then they're running a Shitty business.

So now you're saying that jews only care about money? You, sir, are a racist.

I'm arguing the fact that this thread is dumb as shit,  and preatty unrealistic.

And you're just a dumb fucking troll. Go back to telling people they can't use BTC cause they don't support Ron Paul LOL!!!

You make some good points. 

Thanks for the explanation.

No, it is not, in fact, legal for a Jewish owner of a restaurant to refuse to serve a skinhead, with or without a nazi swastika tattooed on the back of his head, if that said skinhead had not (yet) committed a known criminal offense against the owner, other patrons, or establishment and he has the funds to pay for the meal.  The reality is that the clause of the Civil Rights Act that RP objected to at the time, and still does, made this (admittedly unlikely) scenario a matter of civil rights.  It granted the skinhead a right that does not exist, namely to be served equally by one who does not wish to engage in business.  This is one example of the inevitiable, yet unintended, consequences of federal laws such as this one; that charge the federal government with the task of selective enforcement of positive rights.  And yes, this is selective enforcement, because the right of the Jewish owner to not engage in business with someone he doesn't wish to is borderline slavery.  This isn't a thread about the moral aspects of this scenario, for the moral aspects are obvious enough to anyone who isn't a skinhead.  And the scenario remains rare, because skinheads (like most people) prefer to self-segregate, and thus wouldn't likely enter into such an establishment without a hidden motive, also likely malicious.  Because of this, if a Jewish owner refused to serve a skinhead, he would more than likely get away with it, but the skinhead could then sue under the Civil Rights Act and likely win.

So its the free market that "ended" racial discrimination?

barbarousrelic hit the nail on the head. Let me requote him:


Refusing to serve a neo nazi is IMO fine. Refusing to serve someone because he is of German descend, is not. And no, free markets wont solve that, not when the people being discriminated represent a (small) minority.

Got it.  So right now, it is perfectly legal (in the US) for a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse service to a skinhead.  But the question is, is that legal right ethically right.

I say, yes.  It should absolutely be a person's choice to provide service only to those who they wish to provide service to, for whatever reason they like.  If someone want to refuse service to me because I have blue eyes, then I'll laugh at them, find a different place to do business with, and badmouth that first business as much as possible.  The free market can take care of unfair discriminators rather quickly and efficiently.

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".  Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

You're not arguing the principle, dumbass

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

Can a private business discriminate against people based on their political views?   

Private businesses do discriminate on many factors - for instance the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy.

So long as you aren't discriminating on race, veteran status, ethnicity, gender, (and in some places sexual orientation), age (in some cases), or disability - I think you are generally fine under the law.  So you can discriminate against short people (lots of amusement parks), people with blue eyes, etc.

I doubt the Jewish owner will even be @ the restaurant  .

His workers will be the one serving him. And if they are not, I doubt the owner will give a shit what the customers personal beliefs are.

The owner is after one thing, MONEY.

Now if the Neo-Nazi is being nasty, that's a different story. Then the owner can simply call the police, and have him arrested... He isn't forced to serve "anyone".

If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed?

Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously...

Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-.

What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one?