# No, the free market will not protect civil rights (or 'why the Civil Rights Act is still needed) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982 "2014-02-10T16:30:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/221 "2014-02-13T18:05:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That doesn’t strike me as common at all. > > It seems clear, at the very least, that he turns away people because they’re disabled, which I believe violates the law. AFAIU, he says he doesn’t - he says that he turned that one guy away because he and his friends were too loud. But let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s say there is a bigoted restaurant owner who _really_ doesn’t like some ethnic group - let’s call them _Z_. He doesn’t refuse to serve them. But he has anti-_Z_ posters on his walls, has anti-_Z_ slogans put up, and tells interviewers that he really hates _Z_ and wishes they wouldn’t come to his restaurant. What does CRA do about such a business owner? And what do you think should be done, in terms of legislation, about him? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/222 "2014-02-13T18:46:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > AFAIU, he says he doesn’t - he says that he turned that one guy away because he and his friends were too loud. > > But let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s say there is a bigoted restaurant owner who _really_ doesn’t like some ethnic group - let’s call them _Z_. He doesn’t refuse to serve them. But he has anti-_Z_ posters on his walls, has anti-_Z_ slogans put up, and tells interviewers that he really hates _Z_ and wishes they wouldn’t come to his restaurant. > > What does CRA do about such a business owner? And what do you think should be done, in terms of legislation, about him? Provided he serves Zs the same as non-Zs and treats them with respect person to person, and providing his employees do likewise, and providing his customers aren’t allowed (by him) to disrespect or harass Zs, then he probably isn’t actively discriminating nor creating a discriminatory environment, and nothing should be done. But just how inflammatory are his posters? Are they hate speech? Do they themselves create a discriminatory atmosphere? If so, then his establishment may be effectively discriminatory even while he himself is able to claim to be acting in a non-discriminatory manner. It can be the “I’m not touching you!!!” scenario of kids in the back seat of the car. ---
**Author:** ![DChord568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@DChord568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DChord568)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/223 "2014-02-13T18:58:02Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Provided he serves Zs the same as non-Zs and treats them with respect person to person, and providing his employees do likewise, and providing his customers aren’t allowed (by him) to disrespect or harass Zs, then he probably isn’t actively discriminating nor creating a discriminatory environment, and nothing should be done. But just how inflammatory are his posters? Are they hate speech? Do they themselves create a discriminatory atmosphere? If so, then his establishment may be effectively discriminatory even while he himself is able to claim to be acting in a non-discriminatory manner. I was thinking of the parallel with the “hostile work environment” argument, which I believe employees have used to successfully pursue lawsuits, even if they were not necessarily direct, individual targets of abuse. If that works for employees, seems to me it ought to work for patrons too. Don’t the laws under discussion here fall under the “places of public accommodation” umbrella? Whatever their fine points may be, it seems a reasonable concept that no one entering such a place, in the absence of any untoward behavior on their part, should have to be subjected to an atmosphere that singles them out for offense that is not visited equally upon all who enter. To me, that would encompass a range that runs from racially charged posters to deliberately targeted poor service. ---
**Author:** ![DChord568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@DChord568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DChord568)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/224 "2014-02-13T19:17:05Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > PBut just how inflammatory are his posters? Are they hate speech? Do they themselves create a discriminatory atmosphere? In the case of the charming establishment in Enid, Oklahoma…see for yourself: [http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gary-james-tshirt.jpg](http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gary-james-tshirt.jpg) [https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjoOcVhTmSBtXIdfONyyK5Trd48edFO7SUzpPLfIBv0eIbrEADog](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjoOcVhTmSBtXIdfONyyK5Trd48edFO7SUzpPLfIBv0eIbrEADog) I actually saw the posters described in this paragraph when the story broke, but I haven’t been able to locate a photo of them with a quick search, which is all I have time for now: “The restaurant’s official t-shirt makes it clear that a ‘faggot’ isn’t welcome in James’s establishment. It also calls the place a n\*\*\*\*\*-free-zone, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups.” ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/225 "2014-02-13T19:53:35Z")
> [@DChord568](#): > > I was thinking of the parallel with the “hostile work environment” argument, which I believe employees have used to successfully pursue lawsuits, even if they were not necessarily direct, individual targets of abuse. Exactly my thought. And your extrapolation from there is also where I would go. That said, the pictures you posted don’t IMHO quite reach the hate speech level. But if others actually declare a fag-free and a n-free zone, and promises of violence, well, that seems pretty hateful to me. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/226 "2014-02-13T19:58:28Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Exactly my thought. And your extrapolation from there is also where I would go. > > That said, the pictures you posted don’t IMHO quite reach the hate speech level. But if others actually declare a fag-free and a n-free zone, and promises of violence, well, that seems pretty hateful to me. The words “fag-free zone” do not declare a fag-free zone? And wouldn’t you say that government prosecuting someone for displaying offensive slogans is against the first amendment? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/227 "2014-02-13T20:01:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The words “fag-free zone” do not declare a fag-free zone? Too grainy, couldn’t read it. Nit-pick much? My intent wasn’t clear? ETA – your second sentence was added as an edit. If I choose to reply, I’ll do so in a separate post. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/228 "2014-02-13T20:33:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > AFAIU, he says he doesn’t - he says that he turned that one guy away because he and his friends were too loud. > > But let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s say there is a bigoted restaurant owner who _really_ doesn’t like some ethnic group - let’s call them _Z_. He doesn’t refuse to serve them. But he has anti-_Z_ posters on his walls, has anti-_Z_ slogans put up, and tells interviewers that he really hates _Z_ and wishes they wouldn’t come to his restaurant. > > What does CRA do about such a business owner? And what do you think should be done, in terms of legislation, about him? From what I understand, the CRA can’t do anything about this hypothetical owner. And if he’s not actually rejecting Z customers, then he shouldn’t be prosecuted. And the point of the CRA, as I understand it, isn’t to protect minorities from assholery by assholes. It’s to make sure that they have the same rights to conduct business, to travel, to eat, to stop at a hotel, etc., as everyone else. And this hypothetical asshole isn’t restricting any of these rights. But if he turns them away because they’re Z, then he is, and he should be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![DChord568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@DChord568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DChord568)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/229 "2014-02-13T20:35:22Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The words “fag-free zone” do not declare a fag-free zone? That’s not what Dan said. He said the pictures I linked to didn’t rise to hate speech. I couldn’t find a photo of the “fag-free zone” T-shirt or poster (can’t remember which it was, but I did see it when the story first broke). > [@](#): > > And wouldn’t you say that government prosecuting someone for displaying offensive slogans is against the first amendment? There is a difference, seems to me, between a “slogan” and a statement of policy. One is thought, the other is action. If you have a “zone,” you’ve _established_ something real, even if it’s just a space within your place of business. That the owner is being deliberately provocative and over-the-top to make a political point of some sort should not matter in this case. It still pretty clearly rises to the “hostile environment” standard for me. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/230 "2014-02-13T20:36:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From what I understand, the CRA can’t do anything about this hypothetical owner. And if he’s not actually rejecting Z customers, then he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Look above. There are posters who think that he should be. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/231 "2014-02-13T20:37:53Z")
> [@DChord568](#): > > That’s not what Dan said. He said the pictures I linked to didn’t rise to hate speech. I couldn’t find a photo of the “fag-free zone” T-shirt or poster (can’t remember which it was, but I did see it when the story first broke). Are you both blind? The second link you posted says “Fag Free Zone”. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/232 "2014-02-13T20:39:14Z")
> [@DChord568](#): > > That the owner is being deliberately provocative and over-the-top to make a political point of some sort should not matter in this case. It still pretty clearly rises to the “hostile environment” standard for me. Sure. Cuz “hostile environment” trumps the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![DChord568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@DChord568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DChord568)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/233 "2014-02-13T20:45:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From what I understand, the CRA can’t do anything about this hypothetical owner. And if he’s not actually rejecting Z customers, then he shouldn’t be prosecuted. > > And the point of the CRA, as I understand it, isn’t to protect minorities from assholery by assholes. It’s to make sure that they have the same rights to conduct business, to travel, to eat, to stop at a hotel, etc., as everyone else. And this hypothetical asshole isn’t restricting any of these rights. But if he turns them away because they’re Z, then he is, and he should be prosecuted. So if this hypothetical owner displays a sign that says “N\*\*\*\*s not welcome here,” but serves a black customer anyway if he comes in, then he’s in the clear? Seems like a very thin line that would separate the above sign from a “Whites only” one. ---
**Author:** ![DChord568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@DChord568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DChord568)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/234 "2014-02-13T20:48:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Are you both blind? The second link you posted says “Fag Free Zone”. Not blind, just bad memory. What i meant to say is I couldn’t find a photo of whatever this guy has that vents his spleen against N\*\*\*\*s and others you seem so concerned that he be able express his free-speech hatred (which could easily translate into action at any moment) for. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/235 "2014-02-13T20:52:31Z")
> [@DChord568](#): > > Not blind, just bad memory. What i meant to say is I couldn’t find a photo of whatever this guy has that vents his spleen against N\*\*\*\*s and others you seem so concerned that he be able express his free-speech hatred (which could easily translate into action at any moment) for. My apologies. I bet when you wrote this you thought it parsed. It doesn’t. I have no idea what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/236 "2014-02-13T20:55:05Z")
> [@DChord568](#): > > So if this hypothetical owner displays a sign that says “N\*\*\*\*s not welcome here,” but serves a black customer anyway if he comes in, then he’s in the clear? Legally, from my understanding, yes. Although such a sign might violate other laws or local ordnances against disorderly conduct, or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![DChord568](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@DChord568](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DChord568)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/237 "2014-02-13T21:02:38Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Sure. Cuz “hostile environment” trumps the first amendment. Apparently in the workplace lawsuits I alluded to earlier, it did. Were you on the asshole employers’ side in those cases as well? How about if you line out your beliefs on that score? An employee, whose work is exemplary, has never taken any action on the job to call it into question. His/her employer persists in making loud and very public racist/homophobic/ethnic slur-type comments. The employer’s free-speech right to be a dick is far more worthy of protection here…right? The remedy is for the employee to find another job, right? It’s on him/her, right? Because that’s a far more equitable solution than to tell the employer to be a dick on his own time in a bar somewhere — where people can at least reasonably walk away from him without penalty — rather than in front of people who are helping his company prosper…right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/238 "2014-02-13T21:02:56Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Look above. There are posters who think that he should be. If so, then I disagree with those posters. I’m not sure who you’re talking about, though. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/239 "2014-02-13T21:03:59Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/240 "2014-02-13T21:06:13Z")
> [@DChord568](#): > > Apparently in the workplace lawsuits I alluded to earlier, it did. > > Were you on the asshole employers’ side in those cases as well? Yes I am. But at least in those instances you can make some case that the employee is somewhat coerced to be in that environment. Finding another restaurant is much, much easier than finding another job. > [@](#): > > Because that’s a far more equitable solution than to tell the employer to be a dick on his own time in a bar somewhere — where people can at least reasonably walk away from him without penalty — rather than in front of people who are helping his company prosper…right? Ah I see you do understand the difference (as in “at least reasonably walk away” part). If you do, why are giving the workspace lawsuits as something comparable? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982.md?page=13)