OK Restaurant Owner Won`t Serve Certain People

Submitted by: DuckBoy87 3 years ago in

That includes freaks, f*gs, n*ggers, and the disabled. (NSFW Language)
There are 50 comments:
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction: Oh, I don`t think anyone`s thinking that laws can be used to force racists to agree that racism is bad. Per Ben Franklin, "He that complies against his will, is of his own opinion still."

The focus of the Civil Rights Act legislation is not to change the opinions of racists, but to protect the civil rights of minorities.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@S4S

[quote]Just try functioning in your daily life if the local grocery stores, gas stations, and restaurants--private businesses, all--start refusing you service because they don`t like the color of, say, your eyes.[/quote]
I get what you`re going for, albeit a bit of a slippery slope. I still can`t find any fundamental authority to force other people to offer for sale their private property on any terms other than their own.

I agree that it`s wrong. That being said, I think it`s wrong to force people to agree with me.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction: "I don`t think businesses are the property of the public."

They manifestly aren`t. Nevertheless, they operate in the public sphere and are a necessary part of the infrastructure required for a citizen to live a normal life. (Just try functioning in your daily life if the local grocery stores, gas stations, and restaurants--private businesses, all--start refusing you service because they don`t like the color of, say, your eyes.) Therefore, how you run your private business is up to you--provided any services you provide to the public are offered in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@S4S

Yea, we only really differ in our opinions of whether it should be illegal or not. I suspect it`s for different reasons though.

I don`t think public institutions should ever be allowed to discriminate. That being said, I view a private business as the private property of the owner(s).

To me, refusing to serve a customer for some reason is comparable to refusing to allow someone into your home for the same reason. I don`t think businesses are the property of the public.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction: Good thoughts there, which I`m mulling over. This is, of course, a complex (and interesting) topic.

In your knock-out game example, yes, I opt for #2 of your two choices.

Based on your first post, where I suspect we differ is the question of whether or not racist actions that fall short of outright assault--such as refusing to serve a minority in a restaurant--should be illegal as many such acts currently are.

I absolutely feel they should be. If you look at how far this country has come in terms of racial equality in just 50 years, it is astonishing. Without a government-changing revolution, few societies have changed so much so quickly.

I can`t imagine we would have made so much as half that progress without the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@S4S

It`s like the "knock-out" game. From what I`ve seen, people tend to choose people of different race. Certainly this is racism.

That being said, which is the horrifying part?

1. That the attackers are racist; or,
2. That the attackers are assaulting people based on their racism.

Surely it`s the latter.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@S4S

Actually, I meant `equatable` but auto-correct apparently doesn`t think that it`s a word.

As for the rest, I agree that the general racism was terrible. However, I think some people will always be racist, and, to be honest, I don`t really care if they are; they`re [email protected], but, people should be allowed to be [email protected] I think a black person should be able to come up to me on the street and call me a cracker b*tch if they so choose. However, if they then choose to attack me for it, then the assault is the horrifying aspect.

The horrifying part to me is still that an assault was committed, and that police were complicit.

The motive for the assault is secondary. For instance, it would be equally horrifying if the motive was racism, sexism, clothing, hairstyle, facial features, food choices... etc.
0
Reply
Female 2,415
Oh, no it says "former customer" right there at the start.
0
Reply
Female 2,415
@Gerry, that`s what I was thinking! It seemed that the disabled fellow had no problem with the restaurant owners policies until he was restricted... unless that was his first and only attempt to eat at the restaurant? Hard to tell from the report.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: LOL. You make a compelling point. :-)
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Isn`t it better that the @$$holes have their own place to go so the rest of us don`t have to put up with them?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

[quote]Refusing to serve someone for bigoted reasons is vastly different from committing an assault on someone for bigoted reasons; they`re not really equitable.[/quote]
(Minor point up front: I think you mean *comparable* rather than *equitable*.)

I wholeheartedly agree that they`re not comparable. But by neglecting to enforce federal statutes to prevent the former, a local culture can take root that can encourage the latter, as was the case at Woolworth`s in 1963.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

The failure of the local police to step in and stop the mob is a reflection of just how deeply racism had become ingrained in the culture. Were one of the policemen asked why he stood by and allowed this outrage to unfold for three hours, I expect the response would have been along the lines of, "Only Whites are allowed to sit there. She knows that. She`s bringing this on herself and getting what she deserves."

In other words, the assault without consequence that you find so repugnant is a result of the racism of the police, which, in turn, is a result of the racism that was underlying the Whites Only policy of the Woolworth lunch counters.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ HumanAction: [quote]Your example earlier was actually a violent crime (assault) based on the premise of discrimination. The truly horrifying aspect wasn`t the discrimination, it was the assault without consequence.[/quote]
I`m not sure I agree completely with your last sentence above. What I find most horrible about that photo is that it shows that in 1963, left to their own devices, everyday Mississippians would form a mob and assault a fellow citizen for being black and daring to sit at a Whites Only lunch counter. That was the genius of Martin Luther King Jr: by adopting the nonviolent resistance tactics of Gandhi, he knew that he could peel off the genteel veneer of the South and reveal how ugly institutionalized racism was.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 15,339
Lol, they think he only crossed the line with disabilities. The man is the original Unfiltered Republican.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@S4S

[quote]unless it simply means whatever you can get away with[/quote]
Essentially, yes - that`s all I was getting at. There was some discussion about whether or not the discrimination were legal, and my point was that legality is secondary to enforcement.

Your example earlier was actually a violent crime (assault) based on the premise of discrimination. The truly horrifying aspect wasn`t the discrimination, it was the assault without consequence.

Refusing to serve someone for bigoted reasons is vastly different from committing an assault on someone for bigoted reasons; they`re not really equitable.
0
Reply
Male 1,447
The place is now listed as the best Gay bar in Oklahoma on Yelp. Wish I had thought of that one!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ LordJim: "It`s my understanding that a case must be brought by someone who has been discriminated against. A costly and high-risk undertaking.... I could be wrong."

You`re right, and I should have worded my comment about the Oklahoma State Attorney General better.

In the U.S. at least, any lawsuit requires a plaintiff to be initiated. But that plaintiff doesn`t need to be the one paying the legal fees. State attorneys general in the U.S. serve as the "people`s lawyers" and they routinely argue on behalf of citizen plaintiffs who could not afford to wage a legal battle unaided. What I ought to have said was that, if the Oklahoma Attorney General had a mind to, I`m sure he could find a plaintiff for whom he could initiate a lawsuit.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Squrlz4Sale

it`s my understanding that a case must be brought by someone who has been discriminated against. A costly and high risk undertaking.

I could be wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

As a refresher, the statute under discussion reads (in part):

[quote]All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation ... without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.... (including) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises.[/quote]
So if Title II of the Civil Rights Act is now the law of the land, how is this bar owner getting away with violating it? I suppose no one locally has ever challenged him in court. Certainly, the Oklahoma State Attorney General could file suit. The fact that he hasn`t suggests that he feels it would be politically unpopular with the state`s residents. And to my mind, that underscores the need for the legislation on the federal level.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Gerry: Thanks for finding that out about the Whites Only lunch counters. And kudos for your integrity and spirit of inquiry. Not everyone would`ve reported back with a fact that may have been contrary to expectations.

@ HumanAction: I`m not sure what that phrase "effectively lawful" means, unless it simply means whatever you can get away with. By that definition, yes, the mob in the photo was "effectively lawful."

The point of my posting that photograph was to remind people that, as a nation, we`ve already been where this bar owner wants to go and it wasn`t pretty. The Civil Rights Act, Title II, was passed in 1964, thanks in no small part to the Woolworth Lunch Counter demonstrators. When photos like the one I posted were published on the world stage, Americans were rightly ashamed to be seen treating fellow citizens that way.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 11,739
He`s free to have an opinion. He`s also free to get taken out into a field and beaten severely. One of these days he`ll probably get that chance too.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@S4S

If the police were present and stood by idly while an assault was clearly occurring, then the discrimination is effectively lawful. Hopefully everyone here is against such things.
0
Reply
Male 40,259

Squrl - Woolworth was desegregated by Corporate Order so it must not have been law. But it was the social norm for all businesses so I would fight that. There were segregation laws, but I think if a store let blacks at the counter they`d lose all the white trade. Until it was made law to desegregate.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Gerry: LOL re: the No Squirrels sign. Hoomans who display such signs on their lawns are inviting us to take residence in their attics. We are contrary creatures. (Just try keeping us off a birdfeeder and you`ll see what I mean.)

That`s an interesting distinction between segregation in law versus the behavior of individual business owners. Can`t say I agree, but it`s an important point. Does anyone know if the Woolworth Whites Only counters were a matter of local law? Or simply a store policy? I don`t know and don`t have the time to research it just now.

As far as minorities discriminating against whites, I think you`re making the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" argument. Just because one side commits a wrong is no justification for the other side to follow suit.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Some people are just asking for their business to be firebombed at 3am.
0
Reply
Male 40,259
0
Reply
Male 40,259

@ Squrlz4Sale - I think most of us would agree with you on your Woolworth Counter post. But that is when segregation is the LAW. I would oppose that. But just one idiot business owner...who cares. And as I pointed out it seems to be okay when hispanics target a hispanics-only trade. It`s only racist when white people do it.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
A private club can specify who can join but a public service has to serve the public. Individuals can, of course, be barred but refusing to serve entire demographics is illegal.

The disabled guy complaining was fne with bigotry until it landed on him. Guess he never heard of Martin Niemöller.

TruTenrMan, he`s been doing this for 40 years and is still going.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Are some of you unaware of or forgetting the Woolworth sit-ins of the 1960s? Below is a pic from Jackson, Mississippi in 1963. The black woman has had mustard, ketchup, cigarette ashes, and God-knows-what-else dumped on her head and thrown at her because she`s dared to take a seat at a Whites Only lunch counter. Where were the local police, you ask? Standing about ten feet to the side, watching. For three hours.

By the end of the day, the demonstrators seen here had been kicked, burned with cigarettes, and pummeled with brass knuckles. They were covered in blood.

That`s 51 short years ago. Judging from the bar owner in this video and comments I sometimes see here on IAB, we haven`t advanced so far as a society that laws against this type of discrimination are unnecessary.

0
Reply
Male 2,703
No offense taken. Leftists don`t offend me. They do leave me scratching my head in disbelief at times. But I`m sure I do the same to them so it evens out in the end.
0
Reply
Male 118
Cry me a river, it is a a hick bar. Don`t these people have better things to do? Bigger fish to fry?
0
Reply
Male 177
Agree with Gerry. And considering Gerry belongs to one of the groups listed and can shrug his shoulders and move on, why can`t the blacks, hispanics, Chinese etc without making a song and dance?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ DromEd: Got it; thanks. I missed the earlier comment so I couldn`t figure out what you were offended by.
0
Reply
Male 2,703
[quote]Card carrying limbaugh listener right there! Conservative hero here. This guy should get some air time on Foxnews.[/quote]


S4S That^^^

That`s OK though as millions of people actually think that all Limbaugh listeners are like this guy. They think they know what Rush says because they saw some talking head pull a quote out of context. You see Rush likes to demonstrate absurd things by being equally absurd. But then somebody who never listens or doesn`t listen long enough to "get it" hears the "outrageous" statement and takes it as fact when actually the exact opposite was the point. It happens quite often. You have to invest some time in Rush`s show to get to know how he operates.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ DromEd: "Oh look at Normalfreak being all cute and ignorant and just pleased as punch to be so."

What did *that* mean?
0
Reply
Male 2,552
He may be an idiot, but he`s well within his rights to not serve whoever he wants. Stop going there, his business will fail, and he`ll be on welfare.
0
Reply
Male 567
Let him do whatever he wants at his restaurant. As Gerry said, there are tons of places where the patrons and owner would be upset at the presence of a white person. Lots of fraternities are also like this.
0
Reply
Male 40,259

If the cripple was going there for years it`s hard to claim he`s been discriminated against. As for the rest, there are bars and clubs exclusively black or hispanic I can`t go to. No one does a news story on them. I`d say singling out the white guy to pick on is racist coverage by the media.
0
Reply
Male 2,703
Oh look at normalfreak being all cute and ignorant and just pleased as punch to be so.
0
Reply
Male 8,068
@HA

They don`t always hide in plain sight. I wish they would be out in the open too but that`s a pipe dream.
0
Reply
Male 8,068
This is not an example of small-town America but unfortunately it does feed the stereotype of southern United States white people though.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Every business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Personally, I prefer the bigots, racists, and non-nice individuals to be out in the open. That way, I know where not to patronize. Make a law that explicitly outlaws this type of discrimination and none of us will know whether or not we`re patronizing bigots.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@skullgrin

"he doesn`t have to serve anyone"

But if he does serve people, he has to serve them according to the law, and that includes laws against discrimination.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Skullgrin: It is his business, but it`s not his legal right to refuse service to gays, blacks, or any other minority. The Civil Rights Act, title II, outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations.

This guy wants to turn the clock back to 1955.
0
Reply
Male 936
its his business, its his decision. he doesn`t have to serve anyone and no one has to go to this place. live and let live.
0
Reply
Male 8,068
Card carrying limbaugh listener right there! Conservative hero here. This guy should get some air time on Foxnews.
0
Reply
Male 2,703
And there you go.
0
Reply
Male 3,343
Guess he won`t be serving me, either. Even if I do find my self in OK, I wouldn`t give him my business.
0
Reply
Male 3,668
Link: OK Restaurant Owner Won`t Serve Certain People [Rate Link] - That includes freaks, f*gs, n*ggers, and the disabled. (NSFW Language)
0
Reply