I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Asylum

Oddee

Funny Games

Gorilla Mask

FreeGame Heaven

Funny Stuff

123 Games

Not Healthy

Angelsfire.nl

Viva La Games

Pugorama

Caykeyfi Games

Free Samples

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

Vote4Jokes

Funny Videos

Pandasmash

Hot Games

I hate retail

eBaum Nation

Hecklerspray

Comic World

Comics Alliance

Heavy.com



Back to Listing

OK Restaurant Owner Won't Serve Certain People

Hits: 3184 | Rating: (3.0) | Category: Community & Lifestyle | Added by: DuckBoy87
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:24:06 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:07:05 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:46:43 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:26:05 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:00:10 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:17:06 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:15:22 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.

Wendypants
Female, 30-39, Canada
 2123 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:58:42 AM
Oh, no it says "former customer" right there at the start.

Wendypants
Female, 30-39, Canada
 2123 Posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:54:48 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 10:10:54 PM
@ OldOllie: LOL. You make a compelling point.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 14830 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 10:10:09 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?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 9:24:45 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 9:24:25 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)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 9:24:12 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)

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12616 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 7:46:36 PM
Lol, they think he only crossed the line with disabilities. The man is the original Unfiltered Republican.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 4:58:37 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.

scheckydamon
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 427 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 3:19:17 PM
The place is now listed as the best Gay bar in Oklahoma on Yelp. Wish I had thought of that one!

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 1:12:55 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.

LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
 4825 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 12:59:51 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 12:41:16 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 12:38:43 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)

freddyferret
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 11734 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 11:56:54 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 11:25:40 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.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33911 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 11:14:10 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, February 10, 2014 10:44:34 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.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.