Actually even in the Jim Crow South anyone could waltz into a restaurant - so long as they were white. Or do you think restaurant owners carefully screened patrons?
“if you don’t want them to”
When you claim that a property owner has the right to do whatever he wants on his own property, that means that you claim a restaurant owner can put poison in the food he serves if he wants to.
See what it looks like when you make absurd claims?
So this freedom to turn away customers in your restaurant that you’re defending. Is that in the original Constitution or was it added in one of the Amendments? I’d like to look it up because I don’t recall restaurant customers being mentioned in the Constitution. But I know it must be there because you wouldn’t make up a freedom or even interpret something that’s written in the Constitution. So the freedom for restaurant owners to turn away customers must be written explicitly into the Constitution. Because otherwise it’s no different then the freedom to eat in a restaurant of your choice - something derived from the written text.
He certainly can. What he can’t do is feed that poisoned food to you without informing you of it first.
Sure he can, because he knows you can’t afford to pay for an autopsy, and definitely don’t have the cash to spring for a police investigation.
Just say “Somalia”. It’s shorter.
Does Somalia also lack government services?
Restaurant owners have plenty of rights of regulation of clients. No shoes, no shirt, no service: perfectly legal. Dress code, requiring a jacket for dinner: perfectly legal.
Skin color code: not legal. We’ve decided as a society that while people can be racist in their hearts, and can write racist things, they can’t impose their racism on other people. I’m old enough to remember what the Southern governors said about why they wanted states rights, before it had to be dressed up as libertarianism.
As far as the restaurant owner goes, do you think a poisoner shouldn’t be tried, convicted, and killed, even if he did tell his patrons? Was it in big enough letters? Is for all food? Did it get considered as a joke? I’ll reconsider my opposition to the death penalty to terminate that shit with extreme prejudice.
The hypothetical is absurd, but if you insist - if I tell you the food is poisoned, and you still eat it, it’s your problem, not mine.
And this is why extreme libertarianism is so so misguided.
The customer might be stupid, unable to understand English, think you’re joking, vaguely suicidal but without the strength to kill himself unassisted, etc. But you are eager to blame the victim, while happily pocketing $2 for the dinner that poisoned him. The hypothetical here may be absurdly far-fetched, but the same principle applies in many many more realistic situations, and libertarians are happy to give a similar answer then.
It’s ironic that this thread begins with a libertarian invoking morality. Libertarians have no moral code beyond “I’ve got mine” and “Caveat emptor, sucker.”
What? You’re saying the restaurant owner - a man who owns property - can’t do what he like on his own property?
You Nazi. There’s absolutely no difference between saying this and saying you can walk into the guy’s home and rape his family.
I guess what I’ve been saying all along is true: libertarians want to rape children. And I, for one, am not going to sit here and try to have a reasonable conversation with somebody who thinks it’s okay to rape children.
Christ little memo, it’s almost like you are being willfully obtuse here. Go read up on libertarianism if you are interested in it, I’m done feeding you.
so, if I point a gun at you and tell you I’m going to shoot if you take a step closer, and you do, and I do, I’m off the hook?
Something you’ve chosen to ignore is that the customer also has property in the form of cash. The customer is then free to exchange it for a meal if he or she so wishes.
The CRA was designed to force a restaurant to to provide a service, but did nothing to force customers to demand said service.
A black guy could open a restaurant in an area full of racists and subsequently go out of business. Would you like to see the CRA amended to force customers to patronize certain businesses? Or do you believe that the individual customer should be free to choose what restaurant he/she goes to, and even free to not go to a restaurant?
It is discrimination if a restaurant owner says “whites only.” It is also discrimination if a customer refuses to go to a restaurant owned by an African American. Why are you so insistent that the government only get involved with half of the equation?
Right now the Million Moms are trying to boycott JC Penny because they hired a lesbian as their spokeswomen, isn’t that just as discriminatory as if JC Penny refused to hire lesbians?
What about the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Blacks refused to ride the bus and crippled the system. Was that discriminatory?
That’s unfair. Libertarians say you have to buy the children first.
We’ve already mentioned public accommodations. Definition in the Civil Rights Act.
Although you were intentionally trying to be antagonistic, you take another step towards the issue of freedom of choice.
Should an individual be allowed to purchase and consume poison? We as a society have no problem with cigarettes that have long been known to contain both poisons and carcinogens.
Should you be allowed to order a runny egg? Rare steak? Raw fish? What about mercury levels?
There are plenty of poisons available for sale, conveniently labeled with a big skull and crossbones. Should the government prohibit their sale?
So can I charge everyone who refuses to enter my restaurant with discrimination?
ETA I’m a Canadian, so anyone that refuses to buy my product is discriminating against me because of my nationality.
This is the problem I tried to illustrate earlier. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest here. Businesses want to do their own thing. Customers want to do their own thing. These are (at least sometimes but in my guess quite often) mutually exclusive, unless somehow all customers are also business owners in which case you could at least see some kind of MAD principle come about (maybe—but we’re talking about people who would hold a nation’s economy hostage in order to get taxpayer money to cover their fuckups). But we all know how American libertarians intend society to be organized, so we already know not everyone will be business owners, and wealth will tend to flow in one direction. Then the situation is no longer parallel, and discriminating against businesses is not the same as businesses discriminating against their customers. But that’s not the fault of silly liberals being hypocrites, you wanted society organized in a way which was already fundamentally unbalanced.