Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 18    Average: 3.4/5]
50 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 3216
Rating: 3.4
Category:
Date: 02/10/14 06:46 AM

50 Responses to OK Restaurant Owner Won`t Serve Certain People

  1. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3145 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 6:48 am
    Link: OK Restaurant Owner Won`t Serve Certain People - That includes freaks, f*gs, n*ggers, and the disabled. (NSFW Language)
  2. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3275 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:02 am
    Guess he won`t be serving me, either. Even if I do find my self in OK, I wouldn`t give him my business.
  3. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1835 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:07 am
    And there you go.
  4. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:15 am
    Card carrying limbaugh listener right there! Conservative hero here. This guy should get some air time on Foxnews.
  5. Profile photo of skullgrin
    skullgrin Male 18-29
    937 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:28 am
    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.
  6. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:38 am
    @ 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.
  7. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:39 am
    @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.
  8. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:42 am
    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.
  9. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:48 am
    This is not an example of small-town America but unfortunately it does feed the stereotype of southern United States white people though.
  10. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:49 am
    @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.
  11. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1835 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:52 am
    Oh look at normalfreak being all cute and ignorant and just pleased as punch to be so.
  12. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:02 am

    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.
  13. Profile photo of Tupinambis
    Tupinambis Male 18-29
    568 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:50 am
    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.
  14. Profile photo of TruTenrMan
    TruTenrMan Male 30-39
    2553 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:02 am
    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.
  15. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:02 am
    @ DromEd: "Oh look at Normalfreak being all cute and ignorant and just pleased as punch to be so."

    What did *that* mean?
  16. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1835 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:25 am
    Card carrying limbaugh listener right there! Conservative hero here. This guy should get some air time on Foxnews.


    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.
  17. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:31 am
    @ DromEd: Got it; thanks. I missed the earlier comment so I couldn`t figure out what you were offended by.
  18. Profile photo of icdumbpeople
    icdumbpeople Male 30-39
    177 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:35 am
    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?
  19. Profile photo of just2talk
    just2talk Male 18-29
    86 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:41 am
    Cry me a river, it is a a hick bar. Don`t these people have better things to do? Bigger fish to fry?
  20. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1835 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:57 am
    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.
  21. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:10 am
    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.

  22. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:22 am
    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.
  23. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:32 am

    @ 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.
  24. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:34 am
  25. Profile photo of Mikeoxsbiggg
    Mikeoxsbiggg Male 30-39
    1502 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:43 am
    Some people are just asking for their business to be firebombed at 3am.
  26. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:44 am
    @ 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.
  27. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:14 am

    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.
  28. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:25 am
    @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.
  29. Profile photo of freddyferret
    freddyferret Male 40-49
    11742 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:56 am
    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.
  30. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm
    @ 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)
  31. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:41 pm
    (Cont`d)

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

    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.
    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.
  32. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6649 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:59 pm
    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.
  33. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    @ 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.
  34. Profile photo of scheckydamon
    scheckydamon Male 60-69
    675 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    The place is now listed as the best Gay bar in Oklahoma on Yelp. Wish I had thought of that one!
  35. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    @S4S

    unless it simply means whatever you can get away with
    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.
  36. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:46 pm
    Lol, they think he only crossed the line with disabilities. The man is the original Unfiltered Republican.
  37. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    @ HumanAction: 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.
    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)
  38. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    (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)
  39. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    (Cont`d)

    Refusing to serve someone for bigoted reasons is vastly different from committing an assault on someone for bigoted reasons; they`re not really equitable.
    (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.
  40. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm
    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?
  41. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm
    @ OldOllie: LOL. You make a compelling point. :-)
  42. Profile photo of Wendypants
    Wendypants Female 30-39
    2420 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 5:54 am
    @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.
  43. Profile photo of Wendypants
    Wendypants Female 30-39
    2420 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 5:58 am
    Oh, no it says "former customer" right there at the start.
  44. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 7:15 am
    @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 jack@sses, but, people should be allowed to be jack@sses. 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.
  45. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 7:17 am
    @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.
  46. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 9:00 am
    @ 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.
  47. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 9:26 am
    @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.
  48. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 9:46 am
    @ 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.
  49. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm
    @S4S

    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.
    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.
  50. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 10:24 pm
    @ 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.

Leave a Reply