Replies

Whatever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?

I always blame the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950s. Once upon a time, property rights mattered. The proprietor could say, "This is my property. I don't want you here. You have to leave now."

Might be a stupid business policy that could really cut into profits, but being a business owner comes with some perks, right?

Well, that all went out the window with MLK. People became heroes for going against the wishes of the owner. Customers had rights. Individuals had rights. Property owners? Not so much.

I always blame the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950s.

Close. What destroyed the sanctity of free association was the Brown vs. Board decision in 1954. When it declared -- in violation of logic and law -- that "separate is inherently unequal," it offered business operators and anyone in a "public accommodation" no protection from being forced to serve anyone who could crawl in the door.

There has been no definitive ruling on whether precedent requires a business owner to violate his own religious beliefs, but considering the tenor of rulings on religious freedom over the last half a century, it is dubious that they will triumph the manufactured "right" of queers and perverts to demand inclusion under Brown.

Many more of us are going to have to risk jail if we're to resist this scourge.

It boiled down to the commerce clause. People argued, correctly I believe, that they could not travel in certain parts of the country because they could not find places to stay and to eat. In this case, it is a specialty service. I don’t think it could be argued that it limits interstate commerce.

I always blame the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950s.

I saw video of one protest of a White owned barber shop in Cleveland that refused to serve blacks. But why would blacks even want to go to white barber? Its ridiculous. The most obvious course of action would be for these blacks to take their business to a black barber who knew how to cut black hair.

Of course it has nothing to do with service, or equal treatment, or equal rights and has everything to do with dismantling of private property rights, which is the underpinning of Western Civilization. The entire "civil rights" movement was run my card-carrying Communists and New York Banksters.

I always blame the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950s. Once upon a time, property rights mattered. The proprietor could say, "This is my property. I don't want you here. You have to leave now."

Might be a stupid business policy that could really cut into profits, but being a business owner comes with some perks, right?

Well, that all went out the window with MLK. People became heroes for going against the wishes of the owner. Customers had rights. Individuals had rights. Property owners? Not so much.

Correct! I think at that time too, the rights of the group became more important over the individual and property owner. Yeah, perhaps in the grand scheme of things, the restraunteur who refused to serve people because they are of one group or another, is a bad thing, but it is his right, it is his property plus he pays the bills. In the long run, it would be a poor business decision, sure he might pick up a few Klan members and racists, but he is actually denying himself a lot more dollars that he could have had. This is why Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he knew it would be used as a weapon for groups to punish other individuals, property owners or other groups.