Private business should be allowed to discriminate so long as it's clear they are not business open to the public. For instance, and airliner should allow anyone to fly. A restaurant located with easy public access where anyone walking by might see it labeled as a restaurant should allow anyone to be served. And finally, a club that is visible from the street and advertises itself to the public should allow anyone entrance. But if that club doesn't advertise, is very low key, not located somewhere where passerby's will see it, and does not gain any benefit from the public domain (use of public land) - then I think there may be room for them to discriminate even based on race, right? Not if they serve the public. That's the litmus test. In this case, this club did not have a private membership - in other words, you didn't have to be a member of the club to get in. I would think then they violated the Federal Civil Rights Act. I am one who doesn't like the call to racism. I think it's thrown out there too much, and yall know I am very anti-PC. But this is a case of a different order. It's not just discrimination going on here - it's racism in it's purest form. It's despicable. If you want your clientele to be white then you can create an establishment to cater to white "preferences" and crowds. But you can't operate a business that functions by serving the public and then discriminating on who gets served. That's illegal.
The only test that needs to be applied is the "is this institution getting government money" test. pass = discriminate all you want fail = no discrimination allowed k thnx
Fortunately - that's not how it works. Doesn't matter if you receive gov't money or not. If you serve the public, you can not discriminate. It's even more true with employment - unless it's essential to your business (Hooters for example).
Ref, I wasn't implying that you were okay with segregation. I think it's a given (or at least my sincere hope) that everyone in this thread is against segregation. What I was aiming at was that several posters have made the "private business = do whatever they want" argument. That may entail fewer consequences, now, when fewer and fewer Southern businesses openly discriminate, or even wish to (and thus, the victim of discrimination can simply, ahem, "man up" and walk to a different bar down the street). But, as I was trying to point out, the same type of thinking half a century ago, when virtually all businesses were united in segregation, would have led to the indefinite continuation of the Jim Crow South. My point, not aimed specifically at you, was that therefore private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against the public that they serve. There isn't some magical, society-wide racism tipping point that makes it now okay to relax anti-discrimination efforts. We'll see about that. My discrimination suit against Hooters shall prevail! If I have to, I'll appeal all the way to the Supremos. Houston Press: Man Wants To Lick Hooters (In The Courtroom)
I'm think that's a pretty fair compromise. I haven't studied the law on this but I am curious how the you balance the non-discrimination with the First Ammendment protection of free association. I've always read the right to free association as not just being allowed to associate but also being able to decide who you associate with.
how is that fair and just? "serve the public"? thats such gray area... nonsense. either you're a private institution or public. the line drawn is whether or not you are funded by taxes (i.e. against the will of the citizenry)
Consider that under our systems many of the essentials of life are provided through the private sector such as grocery and clothing stores. While a grocery store is a private business it is also providing an essential service to the community and in that way serves the public. Not having some line regarding which businesses can discriminate you could have a backdoor to segregation by denying access to basics like food and clothing to minorities. At the sametime many businesses require licensing and permitting which shows that the state already has an interest in how those businesses are run.
What if you're indirectly supported by taxes? For example, this club couldn't exist were it not for the taxpayer-built street out in front of them, the taxpayer supported utility structure built around them, etc. If the club catches fire, taxpayer-supported firefighters will come and try to save them. If a fight occurs within the club, taxpayer-supported police will come to break it up. And on and on.
if there's a group of people out there being refused a service or good from a private supplier, i guarantee you there will come along another private supplier willing to happily take their money instead.
that is getting into a philosophical debate about what constitutes private vs. public... and it takes it to ridiculous extremes. by your point, nothing is private...
there are govt owned and private-owned establishments.. among private-owned establishments there are public establishments or members-only establishments.. public establishments opens its doors are to the general public.. they can refuse someone for their rowdy behavior or not follwing their dress code but they cannot dicrimate just by the color of their skin..
its just either privately-owned or publicly-owned.. if you want to do business with the public, you are a public establishment
Privatize emergency services? Are you freaking kidding me? I can see it now. People trapped in a burning building while the Privatized Firefighters are waiting for you to get a decision from your insurance company and for you to cut a check on your copay.
