No, they ruled that the CRA didn’t rise to the level of an infringement of his rights. Not the same thing.
Pretty sure Rolleston opened or bought the hotel before 1964, so he’d have been highly confused if you came to him in 1960 and explained that he was dismissing his rights by operating a hotel. He might also wonder how a private citizen could infringe on rights, since Rolleston wasn’t a government entity.
“Luring” strangers, really? You make being a businessman sound so sinister.
Your reasoning is flawed. And this is your re-write of my point:
There is no ‘same harm’ and I have absolutely been saying that the right of minorities is a right to equal treatment from sellers of commodities and services as a group that is comparable to the group that is willfully being served.
That point removes ‘rudeness’ to a ‘seller’ from this discussion. I have also clearly state that ‘lack of supply’ does not entitle anyone to a right to any ‘commodity’.
The harm in a seller’s discrimination against blacks is the unequal treatment he is giving the public in general. His decision to turn away rude customers or noisy or obnoxious customers would not be a violation of the CRA.
We can all agree that that all black people are not rude, noisy and or obnoxious, can’t we?
The CRA is named the “CIVIL RIGHTS ACT” not the “UNCIVIL RIGHTS ACT”.
I’ll take that clarification. Moreton Rolleston’s rights were not infringed upon by the CRA.
ANd I should remind you that this discussion was somewhat started based upon ‘civil liberties’ when I wrote this:
Libertarians focus too much on the ‘liberty’ of property owners and not enough on the liberty of ‘people’ in my view.
This discussion has been a good example of that.
Why would anyone argue that the ‘owner of private commercial property’ used for interstate business located on a major interstate highway should be free to discriminate against a racial minority?
Why did Moreton Rolleston think he had the right to refuse accommodations to black people when he advertised extensively for patrons outside the state of Georgia?
And why doesn’t Sheldon Richman think refusing to rent rooms to black people knowing that there are not suitable or comparable accommodations for black travelers and black business people who have a need to come to Atlanta to engage in commerce just like everyone else - **is not **“aggressive force against others”?
Moreton Rolleston owns the Hotel but he does not ‘own’ the roads and highways and bridges that bring him his customers, his commerce and his profit. Equal access to accommodation on the roads of American for black travelers supercedes Rolleston’s right to make the rules.
Rand Paul said at first he didn’t like Title II and would have tried to change it, but then perhaps pondering a future run for President, he realized he had to disown opposition to Title II so he says, "“I would have voted yes…. I think that there was an overriding problem in the South, so big that it did require federal intervention in the sixties.”
So hotel owners and Segregationist businessmen like Moreton Rolleston were such a big problem in the South in the Sixties that Rand Paul admits that “it did require federal intervention” after all.
I definitely agree with that… just not too sure that it is sincere.
Nine to Zero…
From the link in the previous post. Just wanted to put this on the screen.
But unequal treatment is fine if it’s rude people, or people who aren’t friends of the owner, getting the short end of the stick. Clearly, the simple fact of being denied gas or a hotel room isn’t enough harm to demand a law. No, it is only the motives behind some unequal treatment that must be barred.
You are aware that the CRA doesn’t just cover black people, right? Page after page that’s all you write about, white owners discriminating against black customers.
Property owners are people, too.
The libertarian focus is individual liberty. Part of that is the belief that transactions should be voluntary, with both sides assenting, with the single exception of taxation, a necessary evil (some more radical libertarians are anti-tax, but that’s not the mainline view).
In contrast, your view is to remove people’s freedom to choose, because you think they will make a choice that offends you.
Read the thread.
Because it plainly isn’t aggressive force against others. It’s not the duty of a hotel manager to make sure every traveller has a room. They aren’t a branch of government, providing services to all. Social Security can’t refuse to give someone their check because that person is rude; private citizens can treat people unequally in the way that governments cannot. Except in this specific manner, because of this specific law.
Furthermore, once the laws mandating segregation are gone, suitable accomodations for all religions, ethnicities, and what have you will exist, because there is money to be made.
No, he doesn’t own the roads, and doesn’t seek to control use of said roads. He seeks to control his hotel.
He didn’t actually change course. He told Maddow he objected to Title II, he later said that he’d have voted for the law, which contains 11 titles. Had I been a Senator in 1964, I would have voted for it too. The titles nullifying segregation laws and reforming voter registration and such were too important to let the law be stopped by a single title I objected to.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania was 9-0 too.
Plessy v. Ferguson was 8-1.
So, what’s your point?
Moreton Rolleston did not lose a freedom to refrain from making transactions with the public. He chose to open his rooms to the public that traveled the public roads that led to his hotel. Rolleston instigated the interaction with the public every time he unlocked the front door.
At any time Rolleston could choose to make his property fully private and no Government could coerce him to open it.
His right to voluntary transaction making was not infringed by the CRA because it appears after he lost his case at the Supreme Court it appears he wanted commerce and transactions more than he wanted to control his private property privately.
:dubious: How did he not? Suddenly, there are transactions that will put him in prison if he doesn’t perform them.
And he had the right to accept or deny any offer made on a room for whatever reasons he saw fit, the same right his customers had (depending on Atlanta’s segregation laws, which, again, were justly overturned). That right was replaced with a legal mandate to perform transactions against his will.
Yes, he could have shut down his hotel, just like someone arrested for practicing an illegal religion can convert to an acceptable one. That’s not freedom, it’s coercion.
You mean in the absence of segregation laws, economic forces would fix the problem on their own? Fascinating!
So if a new law criminalizes political speech, and I opt to shut up instead of go to prison, that means my rights weren’t actually infringed?
I see how it is that libertarians ‘generally’ believe the government’s proper role is to protect the weak from being dominated by the strong. Of course that leaves an out for libertarians dismissing the government’s proper role when the economically stronger property owners conduct actions that harm the economically disadvantaged members of our society’s minority group when the travel on public roads and highways.
Economically strong and advantaged Americans like Moreton Rolleston used his ‘property’ to punch the weaker minority group in the collective stomach John_Stamos explained to Human Action a few weeks back:
Human Action sees no punch by the economically strong majority group into the gut of the economically weak minority group back in the Fifties and Sixties. No harm. No punch. I’d like to see Human Action explain that further and what is the libertarian ‘general belief’ that the proper role of government is to protect the weak from the strong.
When libertarians get the tits in a ringer over such things ‘forced transactions’ and ‘forced practice of legal equality’ they are skirting the fact that business men specifically are not conducting their trade in a vacuum. No business man is an island specifically when he has expectations that the public sphere of roads and bridges are an essential part of bringing revenue to his business.
When Moreston Rolleston set up his hotel he knew damn well that black people will be using the roads upon which bring people to his income and wealth producing private property domain.
His belief upon engaging the public sector in an enterprise to provide accommodations for people who travel meant that he has a right to discriminate against black folks who travel turned out to be a false belief.
Rolleston’s so called trampled right never existed.
And the notion that Rolleston was forced to ‘practice legal equality’ is another false belief.
Allowing the public of equal means and demeanor to rent a room for the night and dine in a restaurant that is privately owned is not forcing the ‘practice of legal equality’ on the poor oppressed hotel owner. It is forcing the hotel owner to cease committing harm to people who are already legally equal to the majority group.
That is why Rolleston Moreston lost in 9 to 0 decision in favor of the United States of America where the government is expected to prevent the law of the jungle for taking advantage of and harming the (in this case the economically disadvantaged minority) weak members of society.
‘Generally’ means I don’t speak for all libertarians, nor all the different schools of libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, for instance, would reject your idea of there being any proper role for government other than to cease existing.
If I’m selling my car and want $10,000, and you only offer me $8,000, you’ve harmed me.
If I’m buying a car and only have $8,000, and you want $10,000, you’ve harmed me.
If I want to stay at your hotel and it’s fully booked, you’ve harmed me.
If I want to buy gas but you’re saving your last five hundred gallons for a regular customer who runs a taxi company, you’ve harmed me.
Anytime I don’t get what I desire because you’re exercising your rights over your property in a way that benefits yourself instead of me, I’ve been harmed. What of it? At what point does this harm demand a legal remedy?
The answer is self-evident: when the harm inflicts actual damages, not just emotional distress. Damages in the form of physical harm or theft.
Heck, my calling you an asshole when you change langes without signalling harms you, but no one’s campaigning to make it illegal.
Are you lecturing to an audience or addressing a jury or something? You’re quoting me, I know who you’re referring to.
I replied to John_Stamos already, to the effect that the second-class citizenship was imposed by law, and lifting of those laws would remedy it.
ETA: Again, you’re really hung up on this powerless-minority thing…you do understand that that’s not what the CRA does, right? It’s just as illegal to discriminate against the powerful majority: Christians, whites, people of European descent, etc.
The belief was correct until 1964. Though, your utter dismissal of the right to use your own property explains a lot.
And that is distinct from legal equality in what way?
The Supreme Court decision is evidence of the Supreme Court’s opinion on the matter, and nothing else. And if you want to go down that road, the 9-0 Prigg v. Pennsylvania verdict is there too.
Taking advantage of??? Wouldn’t accepting their money be a better way to take advantage of them?
I’d love if the law of the jungle was setting your own policies for the clientele of your business, sounds like a very friendly, civilized jungle.
There is no harm because that is on an equal basis to all who did not make reservations ahead of time. If you need to call it harm to make some type of argument then those who did not make reservations ahead of travel plans harmed themselves.
Early on tomndebb posted this definition of libertarianism:
And ever since we’ve seen you taking several stabs at trying to convince me that those being harmed by white discrimination against blacks did not rise to a level of harm where minimal action by the government was ever justified.
And now you are flipping the serious harm of discrimination by demanding that a fully booked hotel where one wishes to stay is of similar or equivalent harm.
I see.
We have been through this before:
And I told you that I did not believe that buying gasoline was a ‘right’. I explained it to you as follows:
And you agreed that a black traveling family is harmed in that circumstance, but you don’t like the ‘remedy’.
So if you do not like the remedy what is all this time spent trying to flip the ‘harm’ being done to the property owner?
If a property owner’s hotel is fully booked, he is far from being harmed in anyway. Yet if the black family is turned away when it is not fully booked, that is harm and for which with people like Moreton Rolleston there is no remedy but to remind him that he is ‘harming’ people.
The phrase under consideration is ‘practice legal equality’ not ‘legal equality’.
Do you believe that the African American community in this country are NOT “legally equal to the majority group?”
It’s the exact same situation: I want to stay at your hotel, and you’re not letting me.
Harm is done if I don’t compliment your new haircut, which you think is really keen. We don’t, and shouldn’t, legislate every possible way in which someone is made to be worse off by the action or inaction of someone else.
What level of harm should be legislated? Physical injury or theft.
In that case, the owner’s not being harmed because he lacks the ability to complete the transaction the renter seeks, even if the owner wanted to, short of booting out another renter or renting out his office as a room. His refusal to rent out his office as a room is doing harm to the renter, though.
The difference being…?
:rolleyes:
Yes, they are. See the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
This applies, once again, to the government, and not to private citizens. The government is restricted by the Bill of Rights and its subsequent amendments, I am not.
You are absolutely wrong to claim it is the exact same situation. It is your own fault that a hotel turns you away because it is fully booked because you did not make reservations early enough. It is the same and equal situation you are in with black folks who did not make reservations soon enough.
It is the fire marshall who says you cannot stay at the hotel because even Moreton Rolletston’s private property is regulated by the government for the guests safety.
As it is with the CRA Title II, Moreton Rolleston’s gives up certain individual liberties regarding private property when he chooses, when he decides, when he agrees, and when he and no one else concedes that he wishes to engage in commerce with the general public by using his property as a means to get some of that public’s cash so he can make more money and acquire more with.
It is his decision to let the fire marshal in town limit how many people can stay in his hotel and limit his ability to make more money and more money.
Rolleston cannot claim he has lost ‘liberty’ when it is his decision to invite the public onto his property. Restrictions on his ‘liberty’ occur when he makes that choice.
He still has the freedom of speech to bad mouth and curse the Fire Marshal and the black people and the CRA, but it is his own decision to submit to the laws of the nation and the state and the community in which he chooses to operate a business.
If it is total liberty and free rugged individualism Moreton Rolleston wants then I’m sure he could find a way to have it. It is obvious that he does not want that kind of liberty.
And you keep trying to make a case for individual liberty that your victim decided on his own that he does not need.
So why must you repeatedly argue that certain things are exactly the same when it is very clear that they are not.
Being turned down because a hotel is fully occupied and you had no reservation is not the same thing as being turned away because the owner hates you because you are black.