Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SCOTUS non partison ?
#11
??? Yes, people have no obligation to get into the baking or bar business.
Reply
#12
It is not about an obligation to go into a business, but the right to decide whom you want to serve. The property owner is the one who runs the risk if the market doesn't like the way they operate.
Reply
#13
(10-12-2018, 12:46 PM)k.d. Wrote: It is not about an obligation to go into a business, but the right to decide whom you want to serve. The property owner is the one who runs the risk if the market doesn't like the way they operate.

You are incorrect. You know that, right ?
Reply
#14
Please correct me,then.
Reply
#15
(10-12-2018, 06:07 PM)k.d. Wrote: Please correct me,then.

Civil rights act
Reply
#16
Seriously? The bar owner who refuses to serve someone whom he feels has had too much to drink can have the Feds come down on him?
Reply
#17
Don't think a hammered bar patron is necessarily protected by Civil rights Act of 1964. I was responding specifically to the "right to decide whom you want to serve" comment.
Reply
#18
(10-13-2018, 07:22 AM)j.p. Wrote: Don't think a hammered bar patron is necessarily protected by Civil rights Act of 1964. I was responding specifically to the "right to decide whom you want to serve" comment.

Exactly, and the bar owner was deciding whom he wanted to serve. It is no different than "no shoes. no shirt, no service".
Reply
#19
Agree. Cept he might not have the choice whether to serve or not to serve a drunk. And the no shoes/shirt thing would have to apply to everyone.
Reply
#20
Property rights is about individual rights, not about collectivism or the rights of a collective.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)