Would it? Did businessmen in the 40’s not know that a dollar is a dollar? Did it hurt a business’s bottom line if they alienated an admittedly smallish percent of the population more than if they maintained an exclusive atmosphere?
Stuff like the sundown towns - that’s not ancient history. People who grew up and went to school and built businesses in those towns are mostly still alive. They were prospering long after the civil rights acts were passed. I’m not convinced they’d be run out of town a mere 25 years later.
People still cheerfully keep Maurice’s Barbeque in business. If they were allowed to out and out discriminate instead of being rabid racist assholes in a legal manner, I’m sure they’d still be here.
Sorry, but I wasn’t talking about legality I was just noticing that some forms of discrimination exist and it doesn’t seem to hurt businesses. And if excluding blacks is racist, which I agree it is, it would seem that excluding men (where legally allowed) would be sexist, but one is condemned while the other is accepted.
But to answer the OP’s question I think it depends on who’s being discriminated against. Discriminate against minorities and you not only lose their business, but you lose the business of angry white people as well. Discriminate against white people and there’s not much outrage, but on the other hand you cut yourself off from doing business with the majority of people in this country, so I guess either way, over-all it’s not a smart thing to do.
Sit-down restaurants, bars, spas, or even high-end grocery stores…places that serve a regular clientel who come in for a certain enviroment or social scene…I could totally see putting up a “whites only” sign to keep The Other out.
Car dealerships, gas stations, and fast food joints are examples where discrimination would hurt more than help.
I think if businesses were allowed to discriminate by race today, few people would advertise that they were doing it, but everyone sensitive to these things would know who was doing it. But getting the masses to care enough to actually boycott a business for discrimination would be hard specifically because they wouldn’t advertise it, so there wouldn’t be rock solid proof to convince the skeptics and deniers. Which is basically how it is today, but at least people can sue and hold businesses accountable.
Well, that’s a bit different. You can’t seriously compare the membership requirements of Curves with those of Augusta National.
Curves will admit any woman who pays the membership fee. If we go so far as to call that a “private club” then that definition becomes meaningless as I could call my restaurant a “private club” that only admits white people. (Pay your 10 cents membership fee at the door. Welcome to our “club”)
That being said, I understand that there are many women who like to work out in a place where they know that men won’t be leering at me. That seems rational to me.
There are also people who want to go to a restaurant and eat where no blacks will be. That seems irrational to me, but should we really judge these types of business/customer relationships like this, or let the market decide what types of arrangements are made?
Like the other poster said, why allow discrimination towards men at Curves gym? Why let them cater to a market that has no problem practicing discrimination?
The only real difference is that it was kept quieter in the 80s, which meant less overt bloodshed, but it didn’t change the fact that Blacks were not allowed.
As for a cite, I’ll let John_Stamos’_Left_Ear’s link suffice. I grew up in the general area during the 70s and 80s and some things were just known… if you were black, there were some towns you did not want to be caught in after dark. Vidor is just the most flagrant example–I could probably name a dozen more, such as Gary and Splendora.
I can only speak for the ones in Texas, because those are the ones I’ve lived near. But before the Texas- and Southerner-bashing begins, I’d like to point out that there may have been more sundown towns in southern Illinois than in the whole state of Texas.
If you are white, there are several areas in this country, TODAY, that you don’t want to be caught in after dark. Even though that is because the failure of the law instead of the active actions of it, does it make a practical difference?
Suppose you own a car dealership in a town that’s 5% black and 6% bigots. Don’t pretend there weren’t (and aren’t) towns like that.
It’s not like we’re discussing merely theoretical possibilities here. Jim Crow was real and it existed for a hundred years. And it didn’t go away because of the free market - it went away because of government intervention.
The people who engaged in it, and all the others who tolerated it at various levels in a continuum, didn’t have horns. They were pretty much plain, ordinary folks who had families and homes, positions in their church, their business, or their community. They were hardly the epitome of evil. But they were still bigots.
And most of them are still with us today. Still without horns or other easily identifiable markings. Probably few of them, then or now, actually think too much about it. And probably few, then or now, actually hate other races. They rationalize their feelings as “discomfort” around “those people”. They believe, and through selection bias confirm, negative stereotypes. And, given the chance to spare themselves from having to “deal with” an uncomfortable matter, they would just as soon “keep to themselves” and see others “keep to theirs”. And those are the more reasonable, less hateful, people. Some, even many, were and are much worse.
And they would act on these instincts, even if it cost them a few bucks. Take away our present legal structure, and we’d see an immediate return to all sorts and levels of discrimination. How anyone can convince themselves otherwise astounds me.
you with the face has it right. We tried that and it was a fucking disaster for unpopular minorities. Just ask anybody who lived through that period of our history, especially anyone of an unpopular minority. Why indeed would we do that again?
It absolutely makes a difference. Crime occurs because the law isn’t around to stop it - and that means crime has to hide out of sight. Jim Crow was different - it was right out in the open. There was no physical need to form lynch mobs - a handful of people were all that was needed to kill a man. Lynch mobs gathered hundreds together for the psychological effect - they showed that targeted people that the town was in on this and there was no place for them to turn to.
You’re saying that womens’ only clubs are discriminatory and people are ok with that. I’m saying that womens’ only clubs are allowed so that men can continue to patronize men’s only clubs.
People -do- condemn Curves’ view as sexist. In California, for example, a 2003 lawsuit to allow men to join Curves was decided in favor of the men, based on a 1995 law which stated that private clubs operating as a place of business had to follow non-discriminatory policies governing other businesses. cite. That link also discusses the legal aspect in different places, some of which specifically allow single-sex health clubs.
Like the other other poster said, Curves is only allowed to remain single-sex in places where men’s clubs are also allowed to remain single sex. So why is this a problem about Curves?
First off, most clubs around the country don’t have the money or prestige that Augusta has. It doesn’t make them not-clubs.
In a place like Utah, for example, many towns don’t allow alcohol to be served in restaurants unless you’re a member of a club. Most clubs operate exactly the way you describe: Buy your membership at the door for a minimal fee and you’re all good.
In the case of health clubs, everyone buys a membership (or a day pass, in some places). You can’t just walk in off the street and hit the bikes. Ditto for country clubs. The fact that Augusta is more choosy about their membership than Curves doesn’t give them a pass when it comes to discrimination.
Augusta National relies on the “private club” excuse when asked about their discriminatory policiescite
Augusta isn’t somehow special that makes it acceptable for it to discriminate against women - especially not while people are bemoaning the evils of a woman’s only health club.
So would you say that it would be OK then to allow businesses that discriminate against blacks, so long as there were similar businesses that discriminated against whites?
You are missing my main point. Augusta National truly is a private club. Only a select few of (what they consider) the top notch of society is allowed to join. It “discriminates” against 99.99+% of society regardless of race or gender. They have strict membership qualifications which almost no one can meet. In fact, Gerald Ford was denied membership!
Curves, on the other hand, has a membership qualification of paying money.
You see this as a simply a difference in standards as to who they might accept as members while I pointed out that such a distinction makes any type of “private club” argument absurd. You mentioned the Utah bars which must be private clubs. Surely they can’t refuse to admit blacks, women, or Irish because of that status?
In any situation a judge would look at whether or not an organization is truly a private club or not. Augusta clearly is. Curves is clearly not.
As I said, I have no problem with Curves being a female-only gym (in those areas where it is allowed) for the reasons I stated. My point was, that why can’t “Whitey’s” open a membership supper club, with dues paying members that pay the same day at the door with no other qualifications, under the same rationale that Curves operates?
Just because you and I both personally think that Curves has a good reason and Whitey’s has a poor reason, who are we to make that decision?
I don’t think it makes a difference, but I do think that it highlights what may be at the crux of the OP–some people, perhaps many, would prefer to associate with others who are “like them”.
And is that, in and of itself, really a bad thing?
When I meet someone who has shared many of my own experiences–someone from near my hometown or someone who was on a WestPac when the Stark got blown to hell or someone who’s played Final Fantasy VI 19-bajillion times–then (unless they’re a total prick) I’d rather hang out with that person than with some random dude.
I can see where some might take that to foolish extremes and exclude “not like me” people from their establishment. One of the many problems with that, though, is that they would certainly be excluding people who are just like them in all except appearance.
I imagine that the establishment in question would have a steady and consistent clientele. I further imagine that those excluded would not learn from the experience, but would set up their own “like me only” shop. Humans have always been clannish.
"Sundown towns are actually rare in the traditional South (this doesn’t include Texas or Arkansas because those states were highly contested between Union and Confederate). In the belt from Louisiana through the Carolinas, whites saw no reason to drive away their cheap labor. So contrary to the popular notion of Northern enlightenment, Dr. Loewen says, most sundown towns are actually in the Midwest and North – and in “disputed” areas like Texas. According to Census data, the most segregated city in the country today is Milwaukee. "
