While most of us cought the sarcasm it is still wise to add the “/sarc” just because.
Got to tell you, that his admission the he won’t sell to anyone over 40 says he knows that it is dangerous and culpable for any heart attacks induced by the consumption of his product.
I’m not sure it was sarcasim. I don’t think it was. I remember the first time I heard this point, and while instinctivly disagreeing with it - it does makes sense.
If the owner of a private business (Woolworths or a coffee store) does not want to serve someone - based on whatever, why are they not allowed to do that? While I wouldn’t agree with the owner to not allow blacks - why is that not his right? (Seems dumb though to turn away customers though).
On a Federal and State level that is a whole different thing (discrimination).
There was some sarcasm.
My point is that the government has stripped away our property rights.
Most people don’t agree with not serving blacks because they are black. I don’t agree with that.
However, the federal government has absolutely no business interfering in that decision. I don’t believe any government should interfere in that decision. If the business is your property, you have a right to run it the way you wish, even if that means you won’t serve black people because they are black or serve coffe to people over 40 because of their age. That’s unpopular, but isn’t that what it means to be free? Can’t you be free to be a dick?
The merchant willing to serve the black man and take his money will probably win in the marketplace in the end.
Now, since we live in the country we live in, we really don’t have property rights any more.
You are not king of your castle, as you really can’t do with your property as you wish.
Hell, the property tax makes us pretty much all serfs. Try not paying it and you’ll find out who really owns “your” property.