Posted on 08/11/2005 11:55:37 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
The article states that the pool was closed off to the family only. What do you think is normal procedure when the complex is booked? These vacationers were permitted access to all other resort facilities except the pool, why?
But outside of a courtroom, this is not just a technical legal discussion about what the meaning of "is" is. This is about whether the deed was right or wrong from a moral standpoint. Clinton wormed his way out legally, but we all still knew he was wrong to do what he did. Same thing here.
As for those who say of businesses who discriminate, "The market will take care of it," I don't buy that. The cafe with the "No Mexicans" sign in the 1950s that brought my tough vaquero grandfather to tears because they wouldn't serve his hungry family (especially since he considered himself not a "Mexican" but an "American" who lost 2 first cousins on the beach at Normandy just a few years before) seemed to still be doing pretty good business at the time. "The market" didn't seem to be affected for that cafe nor did it seem to be hurting the beauty salons that refused to cut my mom's hair. It took legislation to "nudge" things in the right direction.
Now you confuse me: most "resorts" ARE private properties. In fact, I don't know any resort in this country that is owned by a government.
In case the spelling police are here, that should be n-u-i-s-a-n-c-e.
Correct. But nuisances are created by parties of more than one person. You can tell visitors: "I am sorry, I cannot allow more than 20 persons at a time." That did not happen here.
Further, disturbance of peace is never handled by denial of access: it is handled by calling police. You react to the BEHAVIOR of people, not there mere presence. Or existence. Or the color of their skin.
Maybe the pool wasn't big enough for "the family." Still seems silly to lock them out and cause all the ensuing problems.
Besides the plaintiff, who says this is not the case? Looks like one court already sided with Baytree.
Not in the other poster's proposal. The proposal was that the business should NOT have the benefits of the police, fire, street or sewer. If the proposal is that they should NOT receive these services, then they should not be expected to fund these services.
Unless of course we are a socialistic society. Oh wait....
"You can tell visitors: "I am sorry, I cannot allow more than 20 persons at a time." That did not happen here."
Go to the complaint linked in Post 208 by RGSpincich. You will see that it did happen here. The Plaitiffs were told the limit was 15 persons at a time, and they carefully observed that limit. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs vacated the pool area by 7:30 p.m., and after everyone had left, the entire pool and gazebo area was cleaned up.
This is not just a technical legal point...the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which I am guessing was the basis for this family's initial claim against the resort) is unconstitutional...that's not a small point.
But even beyond that...the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties is the bedrock of any free society. I don't want any federal bureaucrat telling me, you, or any other American who they must associate with, serve, hire, etc.
And I don't know that we can credit the federal government for improving race relations in this country...a lot of the problems of Jim Crow south directly arose out of the Civil War and Reconstruction and the grinding povery of the post-war south. A lot of the animus among races today (less up front but still there) arises out of the progeny of the Civil Rights Act...hard affirmative action and forced integration.
In the end...I think it will mostly be said that federal civil rights legislation increased racial tensions and diminished individual liberty...and, if racism finally ever recedes, it will be spite of, not because of, government involvement
Did your Grandfather and your Mom have the freedom to open businesses that catered to people of their chosing? It is difficult to argue that the market will not solve the issue without taking the risk to offer an alternative in the market.
Sorry, I thought that complaint I linked to was from an appeals case.(Laser eye surgery healing is my defense) It is not and the case was never heard.
Well, I must agree with you on 2 points.
1. Racism usually rears its ugly head in the face of poverty. It was usually people who were no better off financially (if not worse off) than my family and their peers. Reconstruction and the Dust Bowl (which is when you started seeing all the "No Mexicans" signs all over) are 2 good examples of this
2. Affirmative Action is the worst thing that has ever happened to the image of non-hispanic-whites in the U.S. I have to work twice as hard as the next guy just to prove that I wasn't an affirmative action hire.
I forgot to include you in this post, as the rules require me to do, since I mentioned you.
Thanks for posting the complaint.
"Why don't Republicans remind everyone of that with
every other sentence they speak?"
I think the primary reason is ignorance. Most people really don't know the full effect that the 3 post-Civil War Amendments had when they were passed, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1873. There was no "Affirmative Action" as such, but there were rights of action in federal courts against states and even individuals who attempted to enforce the "badges and incidents of slavery". In other words, sovereign immunity was stripped - by constitutional amendment mind you, so constitutionally stripped - from the states when it came to matters of race relations (with blacks).
Arguments were made at the time: "My God, this means that WOMEN will have to be treated identically, given the vote, etc.", but the original drafters said "No, the purpose is to end the badges and incidents of slavery."
We know what the original intent was.
So, why isn't this run to the top of the flagpole?
Today, it is ignorance, but there's another part that was predominant in the past: most Americans actually wanted to invidiously discriminate.
Truth is, the access to the federal courts, even though it was part of a law passed under the authority of constitutional amendment, rankled a LOT of folks. Of course defeat in the Civil War did not change the attitudes of Southerners one iota - probably made them more determined than ever to keep the blacks down. Northerners were able to enact all these laws and amendments during the period when substantial portions of the Southern electorate were stripped of their voting rights because of participation in the rebellion. Of course as they and their children regained the vote, the South became rock-solid Democratic and aching to segregate, but blocked by the Northern Republican majority.
This came at a heavy political price, of course, as the divisions were brutal. As the war receded, Republicans played "Let's make a deal". In order to keep the White House in the 1876 election, in which the Democrat won the popular vote and, absent fraud, probably won the electoral vote too, the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes (a great Civil War hero; I believe he had TWO medals of honor from the war) compromised with the South and agreed to end Reconstruction. With that, of course, departed the armed shield of the blacks. They were de facto discriminated against, but not de jure until Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 made Jim Crow type laws legal (by disregarding the Constitution).
Republicans didn't fight too hard at that point, because they were exhausted, and because they couldn't get anything ELSE done if they didn't concede local control back to the South. "States Rights", of course, meant the ability to abuse black people. That's the problem with that argument. In American history, it was not a neutral term referring to federalism, as it does today. The "State's Rights" arguments of the 1800s all the way up to 1964 were arguments that the States had the right to impose slavery, or segregation, miscegenation laws, etc.
Still, the North resisted these things until the 1900s and 1910s onward. What happened then? Industrialization of the North, and the immigration of millions of black workers from the South. Northern cities did not use formal, legal racial segregation. They were still too philosophically Republican to do so. Instead, they relied on private contract and restrictive covenants on the sale of private land to privately harness the legal system to enforce, by private contract, what the Southern states enforced by statute.
Remember: if a contract says you can't sell the land to Negroes, and you do, and the Court enforces the terms of the contract, the state HAS, in fact, enforced racism. It has just done so much more subtly.
Now, THAT was the racist segregation game of the North.
And the very last thing that Northern Republicans have EVER wanted to do, to this day, was to resurrect the ORIGINAL INTENT of the post-Civil War amendments, and laws enacted under those amendments, which was to prevent EVEN PRIVATE DISCRIMINATION of contractual nature, by giving access to the federal courts for actions against PRIVATE discrimination of that nature.
The original intent of that portion of the Constitution was not just to stop the states from oppressing blacks, it was to use federal power to prevent private individuals from doing it too: Reconstruction.
And that is the reason why Republicans who have known the history over the years, and who otherwise take a strong "original intent" stance on the Constitution, have NOT picked up that particular racial discrimination banner and waved it. Because if one applies "original intent" to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, then it becomes clear that, actually, that family had the right to take a private owner into federal court for racial discrimination.
The original intent was THAT RADICAL. And Northern Republicans for a half-century, while certainly abhorring segregation in the South, could not raise the originalist argument, nor seek to rely on the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 or 1873, because THAT would have voided all of the restrictive covenants that privately segregated the North -and infuriated the Northern Republican voters.
There's an ugly thread that runs through the whole history, and the reason Republicans did attempt to play the historical "high ground" card is because they really didn't have it. They were BETTER than the Democrats, but they were still quite invidious in their own private form of racial segregation.
Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, when the South began to turn Republican, it did so...why? Because the Republicans started championing "States' Rights". That term has a long history in America, and it never primarily meant "the right of states to set their internal economic and legal policies", which is the modern incarnation and argument. Up until the Reagan Revolution, "States Rights" meant the rights of states to organize their economies and legal policies in order to discriminate against blacks.
The history is ugly, and to this day even "original intent" Republicans balk at delving too deeply into the original intent of the 13th Amendment. Do that, and you discover that the original intent, understood by the enactors, was to give the Federal government plenary power to govern racial relations concerning blacks, whether against states or individuals. The point was to extirpate slavery, and the power granted to do that included reaching right down into private affairs and enforcing legal equality.
Democrats NEVER wanted that, and Republicans have not wanted that since 1876.
And so "original intent" tends to be focused back in the Federalist period, but the doctrine is not applied to the 1860s.
For all of those reasons, the Republicans have not waved the banner too loudly or too proudly. Reconstruction was a political failure for the GOP, and Americans were, and are, deeply divided on the degree of power that can be brought to bear to really exorcise the demons of our history.
No, you appear to miss the distinction between private, club and public goods, all of which are present in a market economy.
Thanks for the clarification.
"The property manager is an idiot."
I just can't believe this crap is still going on.
I read this article hoping, praying that this was NOT a racially motivated thing. Sadly I was disappointed. I really try to believe that things like don't happen anymore but apparantly the stupidity continues to this day.
"No, you appear to miss the distinction between private, club and public goods, all of which are present in a market economy."
Which of these is exempt from paying taxes to the government entity that provides fire, police, street and various other services, while they are still benefitting from these same services?
The other poster's point was that if a business practiced discrimination and wanted to seperate themselves from societal norms, then they should not enjoy these societal provided services. Yet, no distinction was made that these same businesses would be exempt from paying for these services.
What point are you thinking that I am making? Simply, I am stating that if we don't allow someone to benefit from government services, then we should not expect them to pay for these services. That's all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.