1986 SUPREME COURT RULING
D. I. Young
Call it what you want (paranoia, crybaby, etc.) but I keep getting this image
of the return of the signs I used to see when I was growing up in South Carolina
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
I saw those signs in restaurants where I was not allowed to eat in. Please
try to remember that this was something that *I* experienced, it's not second-
hand info. My homeroom teacher explained to my high school class that that
was a way that the shop owners were trying to get around the Civil Rights
Bill, which in effect said that we (blacks) could not be denied something
simply because we were black. So in high school I had to learn not only the
things they were taeching academically, but also that somehow I was just as
equal a human being as a white kid my age. "Hey I CAN go into Edward's dept.
store and no longer drink out of the 'COLORED' water fountain." Again, these
are real and vivid memories of things I experienced.
You might note my statement regarding the Civil Rights Bill, and you may say
"Aha! The Civil Rights Bill is NOT a BLACK civil rights bill." And you
would be right. But when I said that I was remembering that the MAIN REASON
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL was signed was after a whole lot of marching and burning
done by blacks during the 60's, when the "WHITE ONLY" signs were removed from
businesses. A local visit to your library might give you some pictures as
well as well as other info.
Much has been ballyhood about the Reagan administration's retrenchment on
civil rights issues, and as far as I'm concerned it's about true. I admit
that I thought I made a mistake one time when I overheard a conversation in
my office among some of my co-workers, all white. I heard a statement to the
effect that his admnistration was finally going to stop this shit and put
"them back in their place". The mistake I made was in not realizing they were
talking about blacks AND women. It wasn't until a little deeper in the conver- -
sation when I heard the satement "...blacks want *everything*..." (emphasis
their's) that I realized what was going on. My mistake, I did not deal with
these guys directly ("What do you mean by putting blacks in their place?")
but nevertheless wondered just what they menat by everything.
So we have a rash of news stories about the Justice Department and/or the
Supreme Court reversing this law or amemnding that law or taking this position
on civil rights contrary to previous administrations or appointing people to
"INDEPENDENT" commissions who agree with their point of view. We have the
situation regarding the King bill and the communist accusations, and after it
was publicly known that Hoover waged a smear and harrassment campaign against
King ("WHY DON'T YOU JUST KILL YOURSELF AND MAKE IT EASIER") we get the president respond to a question about his feelings by saying "We'll know in 35 years
won't we?"
So the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the "last hired, first fired" issue
really didn't surprise me. But when I think that Reagan, if re-elected, may be
appointing new members to the Supreme Court, and I think about the mood of the
country as I see it and feel it (based on my everyday social contacts as well as
what I read/hear in the news) I see adefinite drift towards my high school days.
Attitude is what I'm talking about. I read this morning where the Baptists have
passed a law wherein women will NOT be allowed to be ordained as ministers. This
is the NATIONAL group, folks. I read a lot of articles in this newsgroup that
more often than not start with "Why should I..." and I remember the things that
Meese has said and if Reagan wins they'll try to get him the Attorney General's
job and then Reagan would be in a position to appoint new members to the Supreme
Court...whew!!
So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986
mination suit, that would say "That business/
real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve people, because
it IS *THEIR* business, and THEY have a right to run it as they please."
It's 1986, I own a restaurant, and I don't particularly care for white people.
It's ok if they have their own restaurants, I have nothing against them owning
anything, but let them go to their own place. It's MY store, and dammit, if
I don't want to serve them I don't have to. Separate but equal is ok with me.
The government has no right to make me let them in. Same with the apartment
building I own. I just don't want whites to live their, and dammit it's my
apartments so I should run it as I please!!!
do you see what I'm getting at? So, if you think I'm just paranoid, please
don't flame against me but please reassure me, and I hope to hell that I *am*
wrong, but I see the "Separate but equal" days returning. Two incidents come
to mind: a recent event here in Georgia where some black kids were denied
admittance to a Boy Scout troop and they were told that it was the organizatoion
plans to start "one for them" in the near future. And there is the case of
the black lady who was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution
who was involved in a similar situation, although I can't remember the details.
I won't guess at the details because instead of talking about the thrust of tmy
article someone will flame about my screwing up the facts of the DAR incident.
But I do remember it was along the lines of "I don't mind you doing this, but
do it with your own". And that's not good for anyone and not good for the
development of the country.
a lot more I could say, but I think I've both vented my spleen :-) and also
offered my comments on something I feel that's happening that ain't so good
for EVERYBODY!!!
dennis
Mike Ward
We should all be aware of the fact that Ronald Reagan was elected
by ~25% of those qualified to vote, and that he was elected by
the whitest, oldest, richest and most male group of voters
to vote in recent history.
The only way the privileged can keep their control of the White
House is to convince the unprivileged that they may as well just
stay home, there ain't no use to go vote.
And the only problem I have with that is that I suspect that that's
right. With the prospect of choosing between Ray-gun and Fritz facing
me, my level of apathy is reaching terminal proportions.
Why haven't we had a decent president (or even candidate) since
Kennedy?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
T C Wheeler
latest on Kennedy (re: N Y. Times, Sunday, June 10th, Book
Section). He was all words and no action.
T. C. Wheeler
ken perlow
>> Why haven't we had a decent president (or even candidate) since
>> Kennedy?
>> --
>> Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
No decent candidates? What about Pat Paulsen, 1968?
He was clearly the most intelligent, with Eldridge Cleaver
(that's the *OLD* E. C.) close behind, followed by some
dorks with delusions of godhood. I had a hard time
choosing between Paulsen and Cleaver in '68.
There've been good candidates--serious ones (certainly in the primaries)
--but nobody votes for them. What can I say? America gets the
government it deserves.
Ah, '68: "The police are not there to create disorder. The police
are there to preserve disorder." Well, you had to be there.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 19 Jun 84 [1 Messidor An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
Larry Kolodney
Why haven't we had a decent president (or even candidate) since
Kennedy?
And what was so good about Kennedy??
m...@ea.uucp
ea!mwm Jun 22 18:40:00 1984
/***** ea:net.politics / sb6!diy / 11:45 pm Jun 17, 1984 */
> Call it what you want (paranoia, crybaby, etc.) but I keep getting this image
> of the return of the signs I used to see when I was growing up in South Carolina
>
> "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
I hate to say this, but most restaurants have this right now. A good
example is the oft-seen sign "No shoes, no shirt, no service." Their are
other good reasons for refusing service to people; all them are related to
the actions that person takes, and none to details like race or sex.
> It's 1986, I own a restaurant, and I don't particularly care for white people.
> It's ok if they have their own restaurants, I have nothing against them owning
> anything, but let them go to their own place. It's MY store, and dammit, if
> I don't want to serve them I don't have to. Separate but equal is ok with me.
> The government has no right to make me let them in. Same with the apartment
> building I own. I just don't want whites to live their, and dammit it's my
> apartments so I should run it as I please!!!
That's fine, if the law allows it. You get your choice - either prejudiced
practices are legal, in which case you can exclude whites from your
<whatever>, *and* blacks can be excluded for their color; or prejudiced
practices are illegal, and you have to let whites and blacks into your
place of business, bar other good reasons for not letting them in.
> So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986
> mination suit, that would say "That business/
> real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve people, because
> it IS *THEIR* business, and THEY have a right to run it as they please."
This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not
consumers? For instance, suppose you live in a neighborhood where a
Vietnamese refuge family has set up a small restaurant. Also suppose that
the bulk of the people in the neighborhood don't eat at the restaurant
because they are prejudiced against Vietnamese. Of course, you have a
"valid" reason for not eating there.
Now, the Vietnamese family is going to be hurt a lot more by this
prejudiced practice than you are by not being allowed into some places.
After all, you should have "separate but equal" (silly concept, that)
facilities, whereas these Vietnamese are likely to loose their livelyhood
(sp?). How should we correct this?
The obvious solution is to require people to eat some percentage of their
meals out at the Vietnamese restaurant. After all, those who aren't
prejudiced would anyway....
Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how
do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place
on a person?
<mike
Ed Hall
> This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not
> consumers?
> Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how
> do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place
> on a person?
>
> <mike
Really, now. How do you justify placing restrictions on a government
that you wouldn't place on a person? And no value judgements on the
relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments.
The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on
business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at
large. In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of
this public good. But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms
allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must
supercede any supposed freedom for assult or larceny. And the freedom
of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate
against people on racial or sexual grounds. However, the highest
freedom is that of self-determination. Outlawing discrimination in
personal choice would go against this. On the other hand, outlawing
discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination.
End of civics lesson.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
m...@ea.uucp
ea!mwm Jul 3 16:29:00 1984
/***** ea:net.politics / rand-uni!edhall / 1:17 pm Jun 29, 1984 */
>Really, now. How do you justify placing restrictions on a government
>that you wouldn't place on a person? And no value judgements on the
>relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments.
I don't justify such. The government ought to have to live under the same
set of rules as people/businesses, but you'll never get a government to
agree to that kind of restriction. It doesn't really matter, as the only
thing that can place restrictions on a government is another government (or
maybe a large multi-national corporation).
>The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on
>business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at
>large. In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of
>this public good. But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms
>allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must
>supercede any supposed freedom for assult or larceny. And the freedom
>of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate
>against people on racial or sexual grounds. However, the highest
>freedom is that of self-determination. Outlawing discrimination in
>personal choice would go against this. On the other hand, outlawing
>discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination.
You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well
I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a
business that causes your freedom to be restricted? Using my previous
example again, having a wide variety of restaurants should be good for a
community, and having one shut down because the community is prejudiced
against the owner is almost certainly bad for a community. Why shouldn't
the government take action to preserve the restaurant against prejudice, in
a manner similar to the one it's already taken against in a different case
of prejudice?
I think the answer may be in the word 'ostensibly.' A valid answer would be
that the current government-enforced solution is not really working for the
good of the community.
This now leaves two questions: 1) Is there some action other than something
like AA applied to people to save the restaurant; and 2) is there some
action other than the current set of laws that would better serve the
community in handling the problems associated with bigotry? (Shooting
the stupid sobs is probably a bit radical! :-)
>End of civics lesson.
Beginning of Q&A session.
<mike
t...@teldata.uucp
For those who missed it, the example mentioned had to do with an ethnic
restaurant in a neighborhood where no one liked that kind of food.
>> You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well
>> I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a
>> business that causes your freedom to be restricted? Using my previous
>> example again, having a wide variety of restaurants should be good for a
>> community, and having one shut down because the community is prejudiced
>> against the owner is almost certainly bad for a community. Why shouldn't
>> the government take action to preserve the restaurant against prejudice, in
>> a manner similar to the one it's already taken against in a different case
>> of prejudice?
>>
>> >End of civics lesson.
>>
>> Beginning of Q&A session.
>>
>> <mike
>>
Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but aren't you proposing
that we subsidize all restaurants? If we all have to eat at some of them
some of the time, we are forced to subsidize each and every one. What you
are telling me is that if there is an eatery in my neighborhood where the
food is always burned, then served cold in puddles of grease, where the
food is always rotten before it is cooked (and after), where there are
always cigarette butts in the food because that is where the cook flicks
them and the ashes, that I should be forced to go eat there because it
would be bad for the community to close it down. Now admittedly the health
department would have closed down the above example for the rotten food and
detritus in it, but would have done nothing about the burned, cold, greasy
food.
Maybe if you get your way I'll open a health food restaurant which
only serves raw wheat in 1 oz. servings at $5000.00 each. I could make a
living off of all of the people that you force in to my business. Sounds
distinctly like socialism to me: all restaurants are equal, and equally
deserving of an income.
The free enterprise system is dedicated to and founded on the precept that
if you provide a good product people will provide you with a good income.
When you go mucking around with it it no longer works correctly. I seldom
eat at restaurants in my neighborhood (there aren't very many there), but
I go to where ever the GOOD restaurants are. If the Vietnamese restaurant
in the example you gave was GOOD, people would come from quite a ways to
eat there despite any prejudice from the neighbors.
Ostracism is one of the few ways we have to force unsavory individuals
to behave in a socially acceptable manner. [Neglecting the violent
approach, which I favor not.]
Now if I have misread you and you were spouting sarcasm, I apologize.
I heartily believe that if I own a business that purports to have the
ten best minds in the world to solve your problems with, and if they
all happen to be handicapped (disadvantaged?) black females, there should
be no reason for me to hire a required percentage of orientals or
chicanos. Wouldn't it be a nice world if we could all just be folks
without prejudices? We might even be free then!
From the Civics Lectern of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
An Ostracism A Day Keeps The *ssh*l*s Away.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!
bpr...@bmcg.uucp
you do not place on business" The question requested no value-judgements on
the relative merits of business vs government.
The "value-free" answer is quite simple, really: government is established as
THE repository of force. By establishing a government, the society denies to
every other body the right to initiate the use of force or other coercion. In
so doing, society delivers to government all right to use force, either as
initiative or as response. The exceptions arise from the possibility of not
being able to find a policeman when you need one--self-defense is allowed, but
only when no official ("permissable") counterforce is available, and never in
excess.
There is still great danger--the society, by neglect, deceit, or otherwise,
might allow the government to be coopted by special interests. ("Eternal
vigilence is the price of liberty.") Such special interests could be
business (like the telephone monopoly), religion (vide the current perversion
of "freedom of religion" in the US), just plain power-grabbers (like ecofreaks,
gays, and members of the democrat party), to mention just a few. To be sure,
having control of the force monopoly of a country is very tempting to many
people. Seldom is such control used well--usually, it is abused: such abuse
can be for many reasons. The most obvious is the Bert Lance reason: monetary
profit. Sometimes it is the LBJ reason: the enjoyment of power for power's
sake. Or it could be the Jimmy Carter/JFK reason: to force the adoption of
one's personal beliefs by "the peepul".
Once in a while, we see such phenomena as Eisenhower: to do an impossible job
well. More often than cynics wish to believe, we see a Washington, Jefferson,
or Reagan: to make this "noble experiment in freedom" work and last.
I see that this reply has gone from meta-politics thru politics, into reality.
Thus it's time to consider it finished.
--
--Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc
m...@ea.uucp
ea!mwm Jul 16 10:40:00 1984
, >>> == me,
> = Tom Condon <teldata!tac>
>/***** ea:net.politics / teldata!tac / 11:08 pm Jul 11, 1984 */
>>> You missed the point of my question, which wasn't hard considering how well
>>> I (unintentionally) hid it. It boils down to: what is it about starting a
>>> business that causes your freedom to be restricted?
>>>
>>> <mike
>>>
>Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but aren't you proposing
>that we subsidize all restaurants?
What I said amounts to subsidizing all restaurants, yes indeedy. I didn't
say we should do so, I didn't even say it was a good idea.
>Maybe if you get your way I'll open a health food restaurant which
>only serves raw wheat in 1 oz. servings at $5000.00 each.
It isn't my way - I think it would be a *horrible* way to do things.
>The free enterprise system is dedicated to and founded on the precept that
>if you provide a good product people will provide you with a good income.
>When you go mucking around with it it no longer works correctly.
It's not clear that free enterprise works "correctly" before you start
mucking around with it. Of course, that depends on how you define
correctly. It'd be interesting to give a *real* free enterprise system
(something the world has never had) a chance and see how it worked.
>Now if I have misread you and you were spouting sarcasm, I apologize.
No, I wasn't spouting sarcasm, I was trying to get a question answered.
I'll try asking again (for the last time?):
How do you justify passing laws that force non-prejudiced
behavior on people who own/run companies, when you don't
pass similar laws for people who don't own/run companies?
Note: I am *not* advocating prejudiced behavior - I don't like nonsensical
behavior. I'm trying to get the above question answered. The only *attempt*
to answer the question has been Ed Halls (paraphrased) "The good of the
community outways the freedom of people who own companies, but not the
freedom of individuals." What you quoted from is my reply to that, pointing
out that this may not be so.
<mike
Ed Hall
``For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children
and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems
which are beyond our comprehension. Well, the truth is, there
*are* simple answers.''
[Ronald Reagan in his Inaugural message as Governer of California]
Mike,
I don't see any sense in assuming that the treatment of Government,
Businesses, and Individuals should be the same. It is a falacy to
assume that just because something simplifies a discussion it is
automatically true. Occam's razor does not apply well to politics.
As for the question of why should anti-discrimination laws apply to
how businesses treat individuals and not to how individuals treat
businesses: I thought I explained that. Though law often falls short
of the ideal, one of its purposes in this country is the promotion of
freedom and of equality of opportunity, *for the individual*. In
general the freedom of institutions, whether business, government, or
whatever, is subjugated to individual freedom. This is not an axiom--
just a strong tendancy, and arguably one of the greatest concepts upon
which our system of government is built. Alas, people--and government--
seem to forget that the purpose of government is service to the people,
and not self-perpetuation.
-Ed
t...@teldata.uucp
>> I'll try asking again (for the last time?):
>>
>> How do you justify passing laws that force non-prejudiced
>> behavior on people who own/run companies, when you don't
>> pass similar laws for people who don't own/run companies?
>>
>> Note: I am *not* advocating prejudiced behavior - I don't like nonsensical
>> behavior. I'm trying to get the above question answered. The only *attempt*
>> to answer the question has been Ed Halls (paraphrased) "The good of the
>> community outways the freedom of people who own companies, but not the
>> freedom of individuals." What you quoted from is my reply to that, pointing
>> out that this may not be so.
>>
>> <mike
I am sorry for not understanding the question the first time. The answer
to the question is simply "You can't justify it."
An important maxim to remember when setting out to right
the wrongs of the world is:
You can not legislate morals.
If you try, someone will find a loophole. The only solution is that you
must educate. The DarkAvenger and I (alas, he is leaving net.land...au
revoir JJ) were discussing this just the other month, and came to the
conlusion that the best way to combat black/white prejudice is to ensure
that all children of each race to have a friend of the other race. That
way they could learn that we are all "folks" at heart and quit fearing each
other. When the fear leaves the equation we get only people. People are
either OK, or not, based on their behavior.
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
One Less Law A Day Keeps Opression Away.