Topic: Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead? - page 9. (Read 9207 times)

If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him

If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment

I agree that racial relations should be an issue handled by individual people and not in any way influenced or handled by any governmental, corporational, educational, orgizational or other collection of people and merely the reality of which through word of mouth and other spreading of informations (e.g. reddit) the actions of all things (including efforts towards racial and other discriminations) the people can decide for themselves on how to proceed.

Everything has varying values even in terms of racial discrimination.  The context of which the racial discrimination occurred and the longevity and other factors and characteristics of the single event of racial discrimination would determine the level of response and effort pursued by people that felt worth and value in responding and propagating suggestive information to others on responding as well.  And through freedom of choice the people can decide with whom to listen to and either participate or not.  Sometimes there is misinformation that is not clearly recognized, but it isn't necessary to rely on a kind of governmental, coporational, educational, orgizational or other collection of people community to tell us what is and is not misinformation and allow them to handle situations for us through fines, imprisonment or other penalties.  We can penalize such people, businesses, corporations, educational facilities, organizations, governments quite well as individual people.

Resources for which events such as occurrences of racial discrimination can be reliably documented and searched for as part of determining which business to do business with would be useful.  There are tons of sites that offer reviews and ratings, but none which offer precise and specific types of informations or evaluations especially based on specific things, such as a list of racial discriminations, or a count of how many instances and the rating of each instance, perhaps an average rating, etc.

I keep adding to this post and rambling on and on.  Perhaps I should continue to prepare it as a novel and see if I can find a publisher.

Of course.

The power to force people to associate against their will is arbitrary, because the determination of when it is appropriate to do so is a completely separate affair. If you concede that someone has that power, then what's to stop them from exercising it when the criteria for "good associations" suddenly (or gradually) changes to something you don't like?

Bottom line: forcing peaceful adults to associate against their will is wrong.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with Ron Paul that Jim Crow laws were an example of state governments functioning outside the constitution?  Flippro?

And that is the point.  According to the Civil Rights Act, it's not up to him to decide.  He must serve anyone who enters into his 'public' establishment who has the money to pay, without regard to his race or appearances (excepting a lack of shoes and shirt).

no, not unless its a part of the recipe.

if i was the jewish guy, i would sell the nazi some food. and take his money.

Or whether or not to s[p|h]it in it.

its up to the jewish guy! his food, he decides who he wants to sell it to, and to which price.

I'm trying to highlight the details.  RP was opposed to the singular clause in the Civil Rights Act that would force this Jewish shop owner to serve a person who hates his family, simply because the hater could (correctly) claim that it was racial discrimination at his expense.  It's not like a neo-nazi in NYC can't find another place to get a meal within two blocks, such shops are everywhere.  It may not have been a practical objection at the time, but RP was right that it would eventually become an issue.  Any shop owner that put up a sign that prohibited black people from entering that store would be on the news within a day, in the modern era, and be under a boycott that would (rightously) destroy his business within a week.  No federal force required.  RP's analysis of the situation is historicly correct, the reason that Jim Crow laws persisted for 100 years after the end of the civil war was due to racism among government agents.

"but seriously guys, REVERSE RACISM is a real problem, won't someone think of the oppressed white men who just want to keep those mischievous negroes out of their restaurants?"

yes? what are you trying to prove here, that FlipPro has double3 standards or something?

As a spinoff of the "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for love" thread, I'm asking this question...

Should a Jewish owner of an eatery in NYC be forced by governments to serve a hungry neo-nazi skinhead, if he has the money?

How say you FlipPro?