Here is a quote from your own cite describing the 1964 Civil Rights Act provisions:
And, I couldn’t find any place on that site that said that this provision was superfluous because the market had already taken care of this problem. Would you care to enlighten me on where you got this idea (besides from the fact that a boycott worked in at least one case)?
I believe that restaurants have been successfully sued under this provision up until this day. Wasn’t there recently a suit involving Denny’s or someplace like that which was won or settled?
[But, thanks for trying to re-write civil rights history to fit your ultra-libertarian views.]
“I fully support the right of consumers to choose which types of establishments they prefer to frequent. In short, I’m arguing in favor of greater individual freedom.”
If the types they prefer do not exist, then there is no choice to be made. My point was IN RESPONSE to your repeated arguments to the effect “Well you don’t have to go there if you don’t like it.” You claim that it doesn’t have “anything to do with anything” is silly, since it was a DIRECT RESPONSE to your point. If Soylent Green were the only food available, it would be rather silly to say “Well nodoby’s forcing you to eat Soylent Green.”
Yes, pervert - All discrimination had completely ended before the Civil Rights Act, and the Act was completely superfluous. I’m sorry, which parallel universe are we talking about again?
First of all, I believe I referred to “civil rights legislation”, which is not limited to the Civil Rights Act. States also have their own civil rights laws. Second, I brought it up not as a DIRECT analogy, but as an example of something that was clearly in the public good that was not magically solved by “the market”, and where legislation was a prudent measure to ensure that this goal was accomplished.
You misunderstand. That was NOT my intention. As I said, I was trying to make the point that legislation that regulates businesses in order to further the public good can and has been enacted, and it is not ipso facto evil. Neither the Federal Constitution nor any state constitution of which I am aware prohibits government from regulating businesses, as was your claim.
But you are suggesting that those who DON’T WANT cigarette smoke should be prohibited. Correct me if I am misconstruing your position, but do you not contend that (A) state government ought to be forbidden from enacting legislation regarding smoking in public, and (B) that such legislation should not be enacted even if no (or virtually none) non-smoking venues exist? If there is no place where a person who doesn’t want smoke can go, then that person is prohibited from using those facilities.
Again, I said I wouldn’t object to some smoking venues, which wouldn’t force them outside. But at any rate, if any group ought to be forced outside, offhand I would say it ought to be the ones who engage in an unhealthful, destructive, and annoying habit. And to turn your argument around, nodoby said they have to smoke cigarettes.
I never said nor implied any such thing. I hope that’s clear to you now. BTW, where are you getting this “free association” concept from? You’re not talking about this, are you?
because that quite obviously has nothing to do with smoking cigarettes. I’m afraid I’m not getting the meaning of your last sentence: “I simply think that free association rights must apply to the bigots amongst us as well.”
Please do not misquote me. You referred to the following “rights”:
You seem to have simply pulled these out of your ass, and I said you have no such rights. I don’t recall saying “no right to run a business exists”. If I said such a thing, please find an exact quote and I will respond.
As for the 9th Amendment, I don’t think you can take it to mean that every possible thing you can conceive of is a right. I don’t have the right to murder you; I don’t have the right to poison the public water supply, etc. etc.
If so many people favor smoking venues, and there are so many “busybody” legislators who are thwarting the will of the people, exactly how is it that these people remain in office?
blowero, you are confusing me with Dewey Cheatem Undhow. Although I am flattered, it is certainly unfair to him. It is my fault. I keep responding to thing you direct at him myself.
Cute. It’s been asserted several times, and refuted several times.
Yes, CERTAIN rights, not EVERY CONCEIVABLE THING that you want to call a right. I can’t fire a shotgun at you when you come in the door. I can’t take a dump on your head while you’re eating dinner. I can’t butcher the cat that’s hanging out in the alley behind my resturant and serve it to you as filet mignon.
Are you sitting down? Because I’m gonna hit you with a shocking revelation: NOT EVERYONE IS A LIBERTARIAN. Yes, there are ways for government to prevent people from doing whatever the hell they feel like and hurting others. They’re called “laws”.:eek:
I don’t think I said that having only smoking bars and restaurants was a violation of my rights, or at least I didn’t mean to say that. What I meant to say was that it’s NOT a violation of anyone’s rights for government to pass laws regulating it. My point about clean air was intended as a contrast to your point, i.e., you have no more of a “right” to smoke than I have a “right” to clean air.
So to clarify, I am not asserting a constitutional right to have non-smoking bars and restaurants. Here in California, the right is not a constitutional one, but has been conferred by the legislature.
Nope - didn’t mean to say that at all. I think you’re turning things around. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be arguing that it’s wrong for government to regulate smoking. All I’m saying is that it’s NOT wrong. Saying that government can regulate smoking is not the same as saying that government must regulate smoking.
Um, yeah - your point being?
First of all, I didn’t say that it necessarily does. I said IF there aren’t any non-smoking venues available, then I’m in favor of having laws to allow for some. Second, I lived in California before the smoking law, and non-smoking bars were virtually non-existent. If you wanted to go out for a drink, you had to resign yourself to getting a headache and experiencing shortness of breath (not to mention having your clothes stink for the next few days). I think there were a few non-smoking restaurants, but most were merely divided into smoking and non-smoking sections, with no provisions to keep the smoke in the smoking section, so there really was no point in even dividing the place.
If you want another example, look at Las Vegas, where they currently let the business owner decide what to do. Have you been there? Can you honestly say you saw a lot of non-smoking casinos? I would gladly patronize a non-smoking casino; none exist. I accept that Nevada hasn’t passed smoking regulations, and that if I go there, I will have to breathe smoke. But you do not seem to accept that California and New York have passed regulations.
Pervert, I don’t think I mixed you up with Dewey. Weren’t the quotes all yours? I know Dewey was the one who used the word “busybody”, but I used that characterization because I think it applies to what you are saying also. I think it’s a good question; if these laws are truly thwarting the will of the people, how are the legislators who pass them still in office?
By the way, I will add another point which is that the site you linked to is that of a self-proclaimed “born-again Black conservative” and so his interpretation of history may reflect that. As an example of that bias, if you look in the “The Move to the Right” section, he claims that tax revenues increased from 500 billion to almost 1 trillion in the period 1980 to 1988 and attributes this rise to the tax cut that Reagan instituted and its helping to grow the economy. We have previously deconstructed this claim in considerable detail on the SDMB. It relies on 3 errors:
(1) Not separating out revenues from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. Reagan instituted a large hike on payroll taxes and indeed payroll tax revenues went up more dramatically in that period than income tax revenues.
(2) Not accounting for inflation. The rise in tax revenues is much less dramatic in real terms.
(3) Not comparing to history. As our economy has grown, tax revenues have tended to grow over time even in real terms. In fact, the decade of the 1980s is notable only for its quite anemic growth in government revenues from personal income taxes as compared to the 70s or the 90s. (The numbers I recall are somewhere around 20% real growth in the 1980s with around 70% real growth in the 1990s. I think the 1970s were somewhere in the middle.)
So, basically, his claim that the tax cuts are responsible for the growth seen in revenues is true but not in the way he clearly means. I.e., the revenue growth was anemic compared to other times, most likely simply because the lower taxes resulted in lower revenues than would have otherwise been experienced.
That he repeats such a blatantly erroneous interpretation of reality from the conservative echo chamber in his “history” makes him a source I would put little trust in to interpret other historical events.
**
First of all the description of a law on a website is not the same thing as a provision of that law. I posted parts of the relevant provision in another post. Please note the limitations on which types of discrimination the law applies to. It is intended to address institutional discrimination. There is a specific provision (which I did not quote) which excludes private clubs.
Also, I never once said that the law was unneeded, did nothing, was superfluous, had already been taken care of, or anything even resembling this. All I said was that protests around the country had already compelled businesses to desegregate before the law went into effect. The point was aimed at the attitude you and blowero seem to share that such things cannot be accomplished without government mandates.
*AGAIN, to avoid a nasty hijack into racial policy, I would like to say that I am not arguing that this law was unecessary, impotent, nor improper. *
I am simply pointing out that it did, in fact, imply that certain business owners rights exist which the government should not trample even in the name of racial equality. I only point this out to counter jshore and blowero’s argument that business owners have no rights to determine who and how they serve customers.
<sigh> Thanks for ignoring and misinterpreting much of my post. I’ll admit that I was offering an interpretation of the law which is not standard to elementary school history classes. However, I was certainly not trying to rewrite history. In no way was I trying to discredit the efforts of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.
The fact that you guys seem to want to link your agenda to this movement is the dishonor as far as I’m concerned. The civil rights activists of the 50s and 60s endured very harsh treatment in order to end the equally harsh treatment that blacks were enduring accross much of the United States. They were fighting statutory racial discrimination which resulted in violence against black people. They were not simply whining that there were no bars close enough for them to go to.
As in this quote from blowero
"If the types they prefer do not exist, then there is no choice to be made. [snip]…rather silly to say “Well nodoby’s forcing you…”
To equate this lack of choice with force is ludicrous. No one has been arrested or beaten. No one has been forced to go to another venue for his liquor. The silliness is in saying “Since too few non smoking bars exist, they are forcing me to stay away from bars”. And this is exactly what your position amounts to.
One final note concerning this. I am not going to participate in a defence against an ad homonim attack against the author of the website which I cited. Primarily because the attack is completely off topic for this thread, but also becasue I DID NOT POINT TO HIS OR ANYONE ELSE’S INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY OR THE LAW. I only cited an example of the protest and a listing of the “public accommadation” section of the law. The interpretation of them (what there was of it please re read this post if you still think I am re interpreting history) was mine alone.
No. At least on of the quotes was not mine. to wit:
"You said:
“I fully support the right of consumers to choose which types of establishments they prefer to frequent. In short, I’m arguing in favor of greater individual freedom.”
Again, I appreciate the complement, but I 'm not sure Dewey feels the same.
Please. I never said that property owners rights implied any of those things. Nor that they implied anything like those things. Please stop the hysterionics if you cannot provide me with a single quote where I did say such a thing.
All I have said is that allowing smoking may in fact be different from most of the things which are regulated. If anything it is only similar if you accept at face value the health claims. In which case, your assertion that licensed smoking venues would be ok is akin to saying that licensed “take a dump on your head while you eat” venues would be ok. :D<sorry about the smiley. I can’t help but visualize this.>
And just so we are clear, the essential difference between smoking and the other things you mentioned which I did not assert as rights is
is attempted murder or at least assault. Not permitted in a business or anywhere else. It is not permitted because murdering others is not a right.
is certainly assault and might be intent to do harm if the feces gets into the food. Also not allowed in a business or anywhere else. It is against the law because assault is a violation of others rights, and therefor not a right at all.
consittutes fraud. Certainly not allowed in a business, but also not allowed anywhere else. This is illegal because it is theft. Clearly a violation of others rights and therefore also not a right.
NOTE: I do not draw any parrallels between any of these activities and smoking. You did that.
Care to come up with any strawmen which are allowed everywhere but a business?
No, but is your position really that government can regulate smoking but shouldn’t? I don’t think so. Our entire debate has been about why a government should ban smoking vs why it should not. I don’t think we have been arguing over whether or not it can. Have I missed something in this regard?
Sorry. This comment of mine was not directed at you. I simply felt the need to put in a disclaimer to disuade attacks of this sort which did nothing to influence jshore at all. :rolleyes:
Sorry for the misquote, pervert. I’m trying to be careful but I guess I slipped up.
Strawman. I never said such things cannot be accomplished; I said they are not always automaticallyaccomplished by the “free market”. You do understand the difference between the 2 statements, don’t you?
Another stawman. I didn’t say they have NO rights; I said they DON’T have UNLIMITED rights.
Didn’t I just say that that wasn’t the comparison I was making? You either didn’t read my last post completely, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Save your moralizing for where it’s actually appropriate.
Seriously, dude - you need to go back and get the point I actually made, not the one you imagine.
This is really getting absurd. Can you even conceive of the difference between refuting an incorrect statement and “whining”? You can’t call something a choice when there is no choice involved; that isn’t even remotely close to “whining”; it is a simple statement of fact.
Attack of the killer strawmen.
What the huh?! Substitute “smoking” for “non smoking” in that sentence, and you have your position. There is no qualitative difference.
I didn’t SAY you said those things. I said property owners rights are not unlimited, and I gave examples of things that property owners are not allowed to do. Please try to keep up.
What are you saying, that secondhand smoke must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause death before it can be regulated? Are you denying that it causes headaches, coughing, shortness of breath, etc.? It doesn’t have to kill you to be regulated. You probably won’t die of Salmonella poisoning, but you’ll get sick, and enacting regulations to prevent it is justified.
I think each case should be considered on its merits, why do you keep trying to restrict me to some kind of absolute pronouncement? We aren’t discussing taking dumps on people; it was just an example off the top of my head. Believe it or not, there are people who enjoy being defecated on. Should there be clubs that allow this? - start another thread and we’ll discuss it. Here, we’re discussing smoking. I said I wouldn’t object to licensed smoking establishments; I made no comment as to my position on anything else.
Neither is smoking in a bar. Killing is permitted in certain situations, as is smoking.
Assault is against the law because there is a law that makes it so. Smoking in a restaurant in California is against the law because there is a law that makes it so.
Theft is illegal because a law exists.
No, I didn’t. I used them as examples of things you are not allowed to do with your business, and I deliberately refrained from suggesting any direct parallels.
So you appear to have backpedalled from your assertion that the government shouldn’t restrict what business owners do, to saying that restrictions on smoking are different than every other kind of restriction. For starters, how about tackling the nudity example I brought up earlier. Should all business owners be allowed unlimited discretion as to whether they allow nudity?
Do you know what “strawman” means? You keep using it incorrectly.
Ah pervert, could you please point to any place where I attacked you by implying in any way that you are bigotted? The only thing I have attacked is your libertarian views and what they lead to in terms of an extreme “free association” point-of-view…exactly what you in fact discuss. I think you are applying these views with no bigotry whatsoever and with the utmost consistency. It is just the views themselves that I personally find wanting.
My position is that government, as our representative, should regulate smoking if it is warranted. We voted for the legislature, and they enacted the law. If enough people don’t like what the legislature does, they can vote different people in. It is a decision that is made by the legislature, just like any other law. Why do you continue to insist that it either must or mustn’t be? It’s a decision to be weighed, not an either/or proposition.
Just the whole premise of the thread. We’re discussing whether it’s a violation of property owners’ rights.
Well, you are going to have to provide some evidence that this law does not apply to restaurants and bars. I certainly know that there is some piece of civil rights legislation that applies to such places and, I assume, given the website that you cited, that it is this one.
It is often difficult to read a law and understand it completely. My guess is that private clubs are a very different animal than restaurants, which are privately-owned but are places of public accomodation. I know the distinction can get subtle and blurry and there probably is a lot of case law on this, but in a rough summary, my guess is that this is where it comes out.
Well, thanks for clarifying why you discussed this. But, I still don’t think it proves your point. What you have shown is that sometimes such things can be accomplished without government mandates. I have no doubt this is true. In fact, here in Rochester there was a “smoke-free” bar that existed for a long-time prior to new law barring smoking in bars. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the owners of this bar opposed the law out of fear it would undermine the one really distinctive characteristic of their bar.) However, showing that things can sometimes be accomplished without government mandates is not equivalent to showing they are always accomplished that way or are accomplished as completely or rapidly that way or that this is the only good way to accomplish them.
Well, as I pointed out, I think it showed this to be true only in regards to certain businesses that were not in any way “public accomodations”. But, be that as it may, I never claimed that there are no rights that business owners enjoy in this regard but rather that there is a balancing act of rights that limit this right from being absolute. I do not think, for example, that there is any compelling reason for the government to go in and say that a restaurant can’t have a dress code. (I’d stop short of “ruling” on the question of whether or not the government has the right to do this. But, I don’t think it would be a particuarly wise thing for them to do…and I doubt it would enjoy enough popular support in our democracy to get put into law.)
I didn’t think you were trying to discredit the movement. But, I thought you were essentially trying to say that the important part of the movement was accomplished through market means and the law was pretty superfluous. You seem to have back-pedaled some, although perhaps not that much, from this now (or maybe clarified what you meant, if you object to the idea that you back-pedaled).
Well, I will let blowero discuss the context in which he was making the comparison to civil rights. As for myself, I was just using it (if I did at all before it was brought up by others…which may have not been the case) to point out the reality of laws that regulate what a business-owner can do in a place of public accomodation. I do agree that the fight for civil rights and the fight for smoke-free restaurants and bars were two very different things in terms of both the seriousness of the issue and what the people fighting were up against.
Well, you did seem to me to be trying to imply that we had a view that the laws passed concerning non-discrimination were a very important part of the movement and that your interpretation was that really it was the boycotts and other things within the market system that were sufficient.
And, my attack was not “ad homonim”. If one is relying on the historical interpretation of events you don’t know that much about by someone who you know little about, does it not make sense to look at his interpretation of events that you do know a lot about in order to gauge the accuracy of that source? This was precisely what I was doing. There are a few issues, such as the Reagan tax cuts and their effect on tax revenues and the science of climate change that I have spent a considerable amount of time learning about and it seems sensible for me to use these as a “litmus test” of the reliability of sources who are commenting on issues that I know less about.
To amplify blowero’s response, I find your statement of your position here to be different than I have seen it previously. I.e., you haven’t been saying, “I think the government has the right to ban smoking although I personally would work within the political process to oppose such bans.” Rather, you seem to have been saying, “I think the government is infringing on the rights of people when it bans smoking in these places and therefore the government should not be allowed to do this regardless of the political will of the people. I think the rights of the people involved trumps the political will.”
While I agree with you on the general point of there being rights that I believe the government cannot trample upon regardless of popular sentiments, I don’t see that as being the case here (although I do certainly understand how someone who interprets these rights differently…i.e., who has a much more absolutist interpretation of property rights than I do…could arrive at a different conclusion).
Happens all the time. I just wanted to let you know. As I said, I’m not bothered in the least. Just wanted to make sure you did not confuse my perversions with Dewey’s.
OK, so maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying there is no moral difference between a government interfering to rectify a problem, and a government interfering for no (or very little) good reason? Or are you simply claiming that whenever a government interferes with people it is ok? Seriously, without an “absolute pronouncment” I cannot even tell what “merits” you might use to judge a regulation.
Right which I also said. You, however then went on to list some “rights” that nobody has as if this lended any weight to your argument that business owners should be more restricted than everyone else. Or was it simply an attack on the idea that business owners should be prevented from murdering and commiting fraud?
Well, I must have missed it. You made the comparison between civil rights regulations and smoking regulations. Or did you simply bring up civil rights regulations out of the blue for no reason.
And you cannot claim to be forced into a choice just because no one has seen fit to grant that choice. You seem to think that your right to swing your arm includes my obligation to provide you with a boxing ring. In fact, your rights end when they impose obligations on me. And your right. Your refusal to understand is quite absurd.
No, not at all. My position has never been dependant on the number of smoking or non smoking venues in any given area. I believe that allowing smoking in a public venue is up to the owner of that venue. If all of the other venues in the area are smoking or non smoking my position does not change. You on the other hand have mentioned several times that the number of venues should factor into a discussion of smoking regulations.
Yes. And I have repeatedly agreed that property owners rights are not unlimited. Although I disagree strenuously with your characterization of murder, assault, and fraud as rights. And you gave example of things that NOONE is allowed to do for very good reason. You have said that private home owners are allowed (or should be) to smoke. But you have said that business owners do not have the same right in their own establishments. You have repeatedly tried to make the case that opening a business limits the owners rights in some way more than a private citezens in his home. I have repeatedly tried to agree with you, but to mention that smoking may not be such a case.
I’d prefer that there be better evidence that anyone has died of it yes. I have said many times, that it is annoying. No, it does not have to kill you, but it does have to be administered in such a way that you would not otherwise expect it. See my earlier refutation of this argument. Diseases are not allowed (or at least the regulation of them can be justified)to be spread through food because you are selling food. Not because you might get sick. Its kinda like the cat meat as filet you mentioned. It would constitute fraud.
Yes. And you brought it up in the context of a discussion of a ban on smoking. If defecation on diners has nothing to do with smoking, why did you bring it up? You have made your position on many other things quite clear. Despite what you believe, you do have a set of morals guiding your evaluation of all regulations and this one in particular. If you refuse to identify it that is your problme.
Uh, no. Meeting someone at a door with a shotgun blast is not permitted in any circumstance. Certainly not simply for showing up at a restaraunt, which is precisely the scenario you laid out.
Duh:rolleyes: The discussion is about whether or not these things should be illegal. That is about the reason behind the law. Are you seriously claiming that any law that passes is a priori a good law?
Again, yes and no. It is illegal because a law exists. The law exists because legislatores long ago recognized it as the violation of one citizens property rights by another citizen.
Yes, you did. You brought these activities up in the context of a discussion of smoking regulations. You did so to bolster you point that the state has a right (or even that it is good) to make such regulations. If these activities have nothing to do with smoking, why did you bring them up?
I have not backpeddled at all. I have always maintained that business owners have responsibilities as well as rights. We are arguing about whether enforcing a smoking ban is a responsibility or whether allowing smoking is a right.
Well, putting asside the “unlimited discretion” which I’m sure is another of your strawmen, I’d say yes. If a citizen buys a piece of land, builds a building on it, and wants to open a strip club, why should he be restricted from doing so? Just so we can dispense with your ranting before hand, I did not say the he should be able to build out of glass so as to inflict nudity on passesrs by, I did not say he should be allowed to invite minors, I certainly did not say that he should be allowed to shit on his patrons, poison the drinks (excluding alcohol of course) he sells them, attack them with shotguns or any other thing which is clearly a violation of their right to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
I don’t understand at all your last sentence in this paragraph. What is a decision (especially about a law) except a choice between an taking or refraining from an action? Isn’t the choice between enacting a law and not enacting it deciding whether is should or should not be? All I’m saying is that there is insufficient evidence that smoking bans rise to the level needed to make good law.
OK, now we get to the meat of the matter. Without a hierarchy of principles how do you judge the “merits” of a proposed piece of legislation? How do you decide the certain “merits” are worth certain “costs”?
Perhaps I have been mistating my position. I draw a distinction between rights that exist and rights that are protected by law. I have said many times that the government has the power to implement smoking bans. What I mean by this is very similar to what you mean by “government has the right” to do so. That is, by “power” I don’t simply mean dictatorial force. I mean legal authority. I think that government has the legal authority to do many things which it should not do. Ideally, we try to continually restrict or enlarge the power of the government to encompass only those things which a government should legislate. But these efforts are never perfect. So we discuss and debate particular regulations in the context of our individual understanding of rights. Sometimes we even do so on message boards.
So perhaps my position is “I think the government has the power to ban smoking although I personally would work within the political process to oppose such bans. Because I think the government is infringing on the rights of people when it bans smoking in these places.”
We’re discussing whether it’s a violation of property owners’ rights.