Quote from: P4man on January 10, 2012, 11:10:07 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 10, 2012, 10:59:10 PM

The free market can take care of unfair discriminators rather quickly and efficiently.

So its the free market that "ended" racial discrimination?

barbarousrelic hit the nail on the head. Let me requote him:

Quote

It's important to note that one's race or sexual orientation are things that they have no control over, whereas one's membership in a violent racist group is the product of a conscious decision.

Refusing to serve a neo nazi is IMO fine. Refusing to serve someone because he is of German descend, is not. And no, free markets wont solve that, not when the people being discriminated represent a (small) minority.

You make some good points.

Quote from: MoonShadow on January 10, 2012, 11:32:48 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 10, 2012, 10:59:10 PM

Quote from: Sovereign on January 10, 2012, 10:47:04 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 10, 2012, 10:42:38 PM

I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?

Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread.

Got it. So right now, it is perfectly legal (in the US) for a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse service to a skinhead. But the question is, is that legal right ethically right.

No, it is not, in fact, legal for a Jewish owner of a restaurant to refuse to serve a skinhead, with or without a nazi swastika tattooed on the back of his head, if that said skinhead had not (yet) committed a known criminal offense against the owner, other patrons, or establishment and he has the funds to pay for the meal. The reality is that the clause of the Civil Rights Act that RP objected to at the time, and still does, made this (admittedly unlikely) scenario a matter of civil rights. It granted the skinhead a right that does not exist, namely to be served equally by one who does not wish to engage in business. This is one example of the inevitiable, yet unintended, consequences of federal laws such as this one; that charge the federal government with the task of selective enforcement of positive rights. And yes, this is selective enforcement, because the right of the Jewish owner to not engage in business with someone he doesn't wish to is borderline slavery. This isn't a thread about the moral aspects of this scenario, for the moral aspects are obvious enough to anyone who isn't a skinhead. And the scenario remains rare, because skinheads (like most people) prefer to self-segregate, and thus wouldn't likely enter into such an establishment without a hidden motive, also likely malicious. Because of this, if a Jewish owner refused to serve a skinhead, he would more than likely get away with it, but the skinhead could then sue under the Civil Rights Act and likely win.

Thanks for the explanation.