Unable and unwilling to fully renounce his advocacy of racist and unconstitutional behavior, Rep. Michael Clark (R-9/Hartford) reawakens the two-week-old conversation about his unconscionable statement that business owners should be able to deny service to people of color with this unsuccessful respin on Dakota War College:
I may not have chosen the best words in my Facebook comment. Here is what I meant.
ANY Business has the right to refuse provide ANY product or service to ANYone for ANY reason. No one has the right to demand a product or service to be provided from any one else.
Here are a few examples
A black plumber should have the right to refuse to work on the plumbing in a house owned by a white supremacist or flying the Confederate flag
An owner of a restaurant might want to separate competing groups that might show up for meetings, either by time or distance.
The owner of a gun shop should be able to refuse to sell a gun or ammunition to someone who appears under mental duress. Even if they passed a background check.
A Muslim cater or cook should be able to decline preparing schnitzel. (typically pork)
A cable company declined to provide service to someone who refused to let a dark skinned installer in their home [Rep. Michael Clark, comment, Dakota War College, 2018.06.19].
Rep. Clark’s attempt to argue his way out of racism fails, because not one of his new examples accurately analogizes the blatant racism he defended on June 4. Let’s recall Clark’s original statement:
In a Facebook comment, state Rep. Michael Clark, a Hartford Republican, said business owners should have the final say in who they serve.
“He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants,” Clark wrote. “If he wants to turn away people of color, then that(‘s) his choice” [Dana Ferguson, “Businesses Should Be Able to ‘Turn Away People of Color,’ South Dakota Lawmaker Says,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2018.06.05].
Clark said a businessowner should be able to turn away customers solely because of skin color. That’s racism. That’s a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Clark’s June 19 examples are entirely different moral and constitutional situations:
- A black plumber declining to enter a house flying a white-supremacist flag is protecting himself from potential racial violence.
- A restaurant owner separating competing groups is preserving the peace in his establishment.
- A gun shop owner declining to hand a weapon to a mentally unstable person is acting the in interest of public safety.
- A Muslim not preparing schnitzel is following established religious custom that denies no one else’s civil rights.
- A cable company declining to do business with a racist is protecting employees from abuse.
Most importantly, not one of Clark’s examples involves responding to an inherent, natural characteristic of an individual who is being denied service. Not one of Clark’s examples defends treating a citizen differently solely because of that citizen’s skin color.
As of this morning, Representative Michael Clark has still neither retracted his defense of racist, illegal behavior, withdrawn his candidacy for reëlection to District 9 House, nor resigned from the South Dakota Legislature for breach of his oath to uphold the Constitution. Evidently it’s up to Democratic District 9 House candidates Toni Miller and Michael Saba to hold Clark accountable.
It isn’t, but should be, unbelievable that our state legislators don’t understand the basic concepts underpinning our country (and state’s) civil rights laws. Clark’s comments here are an uninformed distortion I see too often. While businesses may refuse service to people who are disruptive, or they do not like, etc., they cannot deny service based on specific classes identified in law – race, gender, national origin, etc. To do so isn’t just morally wrong, but illegal.
Now that I’m typing this I wonder if I don’t need to put this on a card of some sort to hand out to everyone I meet.
You should certainly hand that card to everyone in District 9.
Michael Clark is a kind man and no racist. At the risk of him being drawn and quartered by the Attack RINOs at the War toilet, Michael and his daughter helped campaign with my family many times for my campaign in 2010. Real racists HATE “race betrayers” like me more than any other sect of society and would light a cross in my yard but would have never campaigned for me. My beautiful brown Filipina wife and Asian daughters remember Michael and his daughter as kind and caring people.
There is real racism in the world. The use of that word though as a political tool to bludgeon innocent bystanders while ignoring the double standards and hypocrisy being employed, is simply wrong.
Clark and Nelson. You’re both so far from the real world it’s almost cruel to address your ignorance.
Clark – Your examples are exactly what racism is.
Nelson – Continually referring you your wife in terms of her skin color and nationality is exactly what racism is.
Stay in your bubbles, boys. The thinking world will eat you both like lox on bagels.
It does kind of sound old-fashioned and 1950s for Stace to refer to his wife as brown. I don’t think Stace is a racist but his verbiage could be perceived as one.
A lot of the boys on here have beautiful white wives – there, does that sound kind of racist?
Or maybe fair-skinned wife and dark-skinned wife is preferable? Or maybe the ladies prefer to not be called anything in regards to their skin color or physical appearance.
(Now Stace, please, I’m not trying to start anything. I like you so don’t think I’m trying to get you going and all riled up.)
Clark and Nelson make up their own definitions of racism to avoid thinking of other’s positions.
Stace, so what you are saying is MC is just constitutionally ignorant not a racist? I actually think he is both. As for the War College attack, I find that accusation interesting, MC told me he used Pitty Patt for his campaign materials. This is what happens folks when you vote for a letter instead of a candidate. Michael Saba was 1000x more qualified than MC ever was.
So Michael Clark is the mysterious MC that wrote a lot for the War Toilet years back while Powers was making a mess at the SOS office. MC made no sense back then and it’s hard to believe someone so ignorant was elected to office.
Senator Nelson, Rep. Clark defended illegal racist behavior by business owners. There is no getting around that fact. Rep. Clark demonstrated a lack of undertstanding of the Constitution legislators swear to uphold. Rep. Clark should resign.
Stace – will said.
Porter, you are incorrect about the definition of the word racism. And what’s funny is how confident you are in your incorrect opinion. You even said “Clark and Nelson make up their own definitions of racism to avoid thinking of other’s positions.” You are a hypocrite, you know that, right? And not by some made-up definition; you are a hypocrite based on the real meaning of the word.
I imagine you are used to being an incorrect hypocrite, so you won’t be impacted by this, but I just wanted you to know that you are wrong, like usual:
rac·ism –
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior; or the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
I personally think that Michael Clark is correct that people should be able to do all of those things he mentioned. I don’t think people should actually do all of those things, but I think they should be able to without committing a crime or civil violation. Just like I don’t think parents should feed their kids fast food every day, but they should be legally allowed to. I don’t think people should gamble away all of their disposable income, but they should be legally allowed to. I don’t think people should sign on for 100%-interest-short-term-loans, but they should be legally allowed to. I don’t think people at the grocery store should be rude, but I don’t think there should be a law punishing them for being rude. I disagree with the apparent opinion a lot of you have that we need a law to tell us what to do in every given situation.
I wish more people believed in individual liberty for all, not just for their friends and like-minded peers.
@Jenny in order for my reference to my wife being a “beautiful brown” to be racist or derogatory, One would have to perceive the brown color of her skin to be a bad thing. One would have to perceive the brown color of her skin to be a bad thing. My wife is very proud of the color of her skin and her heritage, as well am I.
@porter you casting my loving reference to my wife’s color of her skin as a insult shows your racism as YOU are you the reference to her skin color as a negative. You are lonely vile racist creature in Colorado whose life is so bereft of meaning iyou have to troll a blog in South Dakota. You don’t like mY Beautiful brown wife being married to a white man? That shows YOUR racist nature.
@Lewis & CAH You both are ignoring the recent Supreme Court decision.
I also don’t think somebody who disagrees with a certain law should have to resign from being a legislator because they have beliefs contrary to our current legal authority. Laws change all the time. When racial discrimination was legal, many people fought to change the law to prevent it.
Cory, I doubt you believe that a person who disagrees with what is currently considered constitutional should have to retire from politics for that disagreement, do you?
You don’t like mY Beautiful brown wife being married to a white man? That shows YOUR racist nature.
Nelson, Porter didn’t say this. He didn’t say anything resembling your remarks. You took offense over something that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and injected yourself in a personal manner. Next comes the threat of bodily injury, I suppose.
I personally think that Michael Clark is correct that people should be able to do all of those things he mentioned.
Lord gawd almighty. Clark doesn’t make the laws and does not get to decide which ones to obey, whether you agree or not. If Drumpf had his way, you’d be able to do all those things and much more to anyone for any reason. Fortunately, there are people who can actually think critically and clearly. Cory being one of them.
Mike, the man was simply expressing what he thinks the law should be. Nobody said anything about who makes laws or whether somebody should break laws or obey laws.
Reading comprehension is often a key component in critical thinking. Just ask Cory.
Nobody said anything about who makes laws or whether
Sure they did. I said it. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.
Clark made clear people should discriminate against POC if they want.
Clark made it clear that people should be legally allowed to discriminate based on race, not that they should actually do so. He may think that, but he didn’t say it. Whatever his personal views may be, all he has advocated publicly appears to be freedom of choice, not encouragement of a particular choice.
Clark made it clear that people should be legally allowed to discriminate based on race, not that they should actually do so.
Did you mean what you said or didn’t you?
Time out! I need to choke down a bottle of Anacin, Excedrin and Equate brand headache pills.
I meant everything I said, I dont know what you’re referring to.
So Clark is advocating the freedom to discriminate and trying to call it freedom of choice, Ryan? So it’s all just a misunderstanding and it’s all about our freedoms. It’s not racism it’s our choices we should be allowed to make.
Oh good lord, where does South Dakota get these people?
Got to give it to Trump, he really has brought out the racist hate in people.
The Republicans are going to have to own this problem and own up to it fast.
Clark didn’t say anything about freedom of choice, I said that appears to be what he is advocating.
I don’t think the government should be allowed to treat people differently based on immutable characteristics like race and gender. I do, however, think personal actions are very different than government actions. I don’t think there should be laws prohibiting a private business owner from selecting who he or she does business with. I support fewer laws and more social pressure. I support freedom and autonomy.
Clark said what he said. I believe he meant what he said, not something different than what he said. Not something He didn’t say.
Ryan,
Under your “personal choice” model with the guiding principal of “social pressure” (read, free market), what would make slavery undesirable or unlawful? It seems it would actually be encouraged in some places under such a model.
I also wonder how far this model extends. I assume you are pro choice when it comes to reproductive rights just based on your strongly held anti government beliefs, but what are some examples of “good” government policies in your worldview?
Slavery stays illegal. That is a long way from business owners being able to select their clientele. I am pro choice. Good governmental policies include violent acts against others being illegal and appropriately enforcing those laws, universal healthcare, and many more.
What Clark doesn’t know is the difference between being (not a choice) and behaving (a choice).
Damn right slavery stays illegal, I can’t imagine why slavery is even a part of this discussion.
If business owners want to exhibit their First Amendment rights they should post their racism and be willing to tell this Native American to his face that they don’t want to sell me groceries or any of their products or services.
Even your First Amendment rights have consequences.
Roger, the social consequences you alluded to are exactly what I’m talking about. I agree with you completely.
Ryan said, “I don’t think there should be laws prohibiting a private business owner from selecting who he or she does business with.”
That sounds exactly like the Jim Crow South and the signs in shop windows that said “No Irish/Indians/Chinese/Italians, Allowed.”
So you’re okay with that, Ryan? You know the only thing that stopped Jim Crow was federal law. Of course it’s largely resurrected through the prison system and prison labor.
Sigh. It’s dumfounding.
Mike! Got any more aspirin?
District 9, you’ve got good choices for decent human beings to represent you in Pierre. You don’t have to cringe whenever your legislator opens his mouth. If you vote for TONI MILLER you can be Proud of your rep. She’s the real deal– smart, compassionate, quick to learn, dedicated to her district, ethical.
Vote for TONI Miller!
Why do I get the feeling that if Ryan ran a cafe, it would have a Whites Only restroom inside for his pale customers and an outhouse for everyone else because he “should be legally allowed to discriminate based on race.”
Nope, you guessed wrong. I absolutely think all people should be treated equally, I just dont think that goal should be, or will be, effectuated by laws. If I owned a cafe, I wouldn’t have any restrictions on customers based on race or gender. I would be ok with any business owner choosing his or her customers however he or she would like and letting the free market decide whether or not to support that business.
Liek most people I personally am glad we have civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disabilities, age, sexual preference, etc. I don’t want to go back to the days of discrimination. ]
Ryan, remind me. Is that motel in Lake Andes, or wherever the hell it is,that put “Don’t renig” on their sign when President Obama was running in 2012 still in business? What has the free market decided about that?
I understand that it’s hard to separate these issues, but I believe very strongly in equality while also believing very strongly in individual rights and freedom. I dont want anybody to be racist or sexist or to treat anyone else poorly, but I also dont want the government telling us how to behave in every situation.
Ryan would find out pretty pronto in places like South Dakota if it wasn’t for the fed, his free market restaurant would soon patronize whites only or he’d be out of business.
It is federal law, not human decency, that allows POC to interact with whitey on a sometimes equal footing.
Debbo, I have aspirins and am heading to Chinatown (WalMart) next Wednesday to stock up on a year’s supply of headache pills. Providing the prices haven’t gone up by 25%.
I found this from some outfit called Madville Times about a Motel
http://madvilletimes.com/2012/10/lake-andes-motel-says-vote-american-dont-renig-owners-say-not-racist/
Nice sign, front and back.
mike, you and I must have a different level of confidence in the general population and the free market. I believe it to be a small minority of people who would treat customers differently based on immutable characteristics. You seem like you might be in that group, though, with your comments about Chinatown and as often as you talk about “whitey.”
Ryan, at least when I say something it is usually easy to understand what I say and mean. You, otoh, = headache pills. You say something then immediately appear to take it back or change it someway.
You also appear to think personal beliefs should trump established federal law. Ain’t gonna happen, buddy.
If the government shouldn’t decide who you serve, why should they decide who you hire? And why should they decide what you pay whoever it is you choose to hire. There has to be a bright line, not an arbitrary fantasy world where laws arent logical or consistent.
Protection of individual liberties (including the right to shop where you choose) are the exact types of things the government is so vital to protect against the blind majority.
I believe it to be a small minority of people who would treat customers differently based on immutable characteristics.
Drumpf got 63 million votes. Just so you don’t torture yourself over what I mean, I am saying the vast majority of the voters for Drumpf are racists like he is.
And, as we have seen, these people aren’t shy about expressing their disdain for POC or different cultures. In fact, Drumpf’s appointment by Putin has emboldened these racists to shine in the spotliight like they did back in the 60s.
mike, I won’t apologize for having thoughts and opinions that contain nuance and gray area. I’m sure you would understand me better if I pretended the world is all black-and-white like you do, but I am not willing to simplify my beliefs to suit you. Democrats aren’t right all the time and republicans aren’t all crazy racists like you think. Obama isn’t god and trump isn’t the devil. The real world is complex and I won’t act like every issue has a perfectly right and perfectly wrong answer – most issues don’t.
You act like “established federal law” means something. It doesn’t. The current law is exactly that, the current law. It is an indication of the public policy the current population wants to support. If you were born in the early 1800s, would you have blindly supported “established federal law” that allowed slavery and other physical violence against innocent people? Should laws never change? If you rely on the government to tell you what is right and what is wrong, you are nothing more than a product.
Feel free to ignore my comments if they don’t make sense to you, buddy. You have repeatedly proven that you can’t follow a train of thought that contains more than blanket praise for democrats or blame for republicans. You think being a democrat means you are a good person, but you are as much of a head-in-the-sand follower as those idiots who watch fox news and think it’s real life. How comfortable it must be for you to just be told what to think and do all the time.
Ryan, go take yer meds.
Thought police – our current laws are absolutely illogical and inconsistent. That is not a fantasy world, that is our current real world. As for the other part of your comment, I don’t think there should be minimum wage laws or laws about who a business owner has to employ.
The individual liberty you mention is what I am talking about. There are competing interests when it comes to freedom and liberty. You want a customer to have unlimited discretion in deciding who he or she does business with, but not a proprietor? Talk about inconsistent. It seems like you would enjoy communism. Everyone is told what to do, and when, and how, and everyone is issued the same life by the all-powerful government. That way, nobody feels different and nobody is slighted and everyone has the exact same amount of individual liberty (none!).
And what does “the blind majority” mean?
mike, I take no meds. How ’bout you?
Go be ignorant and entitled where the people are as gullible and hungry for authority as you are.
The reason I mention logic and consistency is that we are having a discussion revolving around OUR OPINIONS of what SHOULD be legal or illegal in governmental discrimination policy, the discussion requires an intellectual integrity or consistency or it loses any educational and informational value for both arguers and readers. Your argument that the Status Quo is inconsistent is irrelevant, I agree, the government should be much better about consistently protecting individual liberties (reproductive rights as an example), that does not mean it makes sense for you to do the same with your personal philosophy, and again, if you hold a bunch of nonsensical, competing views, then we can end this discussion now as there is nothing to be gleaned from throwing darts at hot button issues (and is indicative of a troll just looking to agitate).
For example, your 2 quotes regarding discrimination in hiring and employment practices are complete opposites, not compatible, contradictory, however you want to phrase it…
“Slavery stays illegal. That is a long way from business owners being able to select their clientele.”
“As for the other part of your comment, I don’t think there should be minimum wage laws or laws about who a business owner has to employ.”
Your view that each individual is the best AND ONLY provider and protector of their own and only their own individual freedom and liberty is pure fantasy though, and ignores eons of human history that show that left unchecked (and even sometimes despite humanity’s best efforts) some humans will take advantage of the power they are inherently born with through their race, religion, sex, etc. This is EXACTLY why no developed nations in the world have adopted your worldview, because we know what the results are… the caveman era… the dark ages… genocide…war.. that’s what seperates developed from undeveloped in modern society, the ability of the government to protect its vulnerable from those seeking to exploit and harm them (from more than just physical violence). Not communism Ryan, Democracy at its finest.
The blind majority are those that do not think their privilege from being in said majority is not real.
**The blind majority are those that do not think their privilege from being in said majority is real.
Inconsistencies in Ryan’s views? Perish the thought and pass the Excedrin some more.
There is nothing nonsensical, conflicting, or opposing in my comments. Slavery should be illegal because it necessarily requires the non-consensual employment of somebody, probably by force or violence. Just like assault stays illegal. And rape. And murder. And anything else involving violence, coercion, deceit, theft, etc. Those crimes against persons are very different from a private business owner refusing to sell an item to somebody, or refusing to bake them a cake, or refusing to perform some other service-for-hire.
Eliminating the minimum wage laws, or the EOE rules, or allowing business owners to refuse service to people they don’t like does not equate to anarchy, or the dark ages, or cavemen. Now that’s nonsensical.
mike, go ahead and show me an example of these inconsistencies you apparently think exist in my views. Just because you can’t read sentences in excess of seven words doesn’t mean my ideals aren’t consistent.
Oh, you’re quite consistent, Ryan. You demand that our government put no restrictions on your white supremacy. Wouldn’t that be convenient for you? Sorry. It’s in our constitution.
The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equal protection.
Go be ignorant and entitled where the people are as gullible and hungry for authority as you are.
mike, go ahead and show me an example of these inconsistencies you apparently think exist in my views
So what is it, Sport? Should I stay or should I go? Inconsistent? You bet. You lose.
Porter – you are so full of crap it’s hilarious. I have demanded nothing. I don’t think the government should deprive anybody of life, liberty, or property without due process, either. Have you ever actually studied the constitution or do you just read quotes and headlines that match the incorrect things you already apparently believe? Hopefully you have read enough to understand the difference between individual action and state action – although that seems doubtful based on your comments. In case you chose to comment on this topic without reading the whole conversation, which seems likely, I will re-cap for you: I don’t think the government or any government actors should be allowed to treat anybody differently based on their immutable characteristics. However, I do believe in personal freedom and I believe a person should be free to run his or her private business how he or she wants.
mike – fun word games you play. So smart. My three year old likes word games, too. You each contribute equally to intellectual socio-political discourse.
Ryan complicates what should be an easy issue to understand. If you go motoring and break no laws while doing so the highway patrol is likely to leave you alone.
The same with owning and operating a café, if you don’t discriminate against your employees or your customers because of your personal views on skin color or religion you have nothing to worry about from law enforcement or the government.
Your deeply held personal beliefs mean nothing when dealing with the public and federal laws are in place to make sure they don’t.
Knowing right from wrong should be your judge, it really is that simple.
Ryan or Jason or Miranda Lynn or whatever name you’re using today. You use the same words; the same syntax and the same insults against Roger and Mike, no matter what identity you choose. But, it’s what you say here not who you are that matters. That’s the beauty of Mr. Heidelberger’s forum.
Now, a person is not allowed to run a business that infringes upon the liberty of anyone. It matters not what you believe, want or demand. The Constitution is clear.
The Colorado Baker decision didn’t address this law. It didn’t get that far. The decision said that our Civil Rights Commission didn’t honor religious rights before it made it’s ruling. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments stand as written.
I have never used any name on this site other than Ryan, so keep being wrong, Porter – you are good at it. I have also never insulted Roger. I insult mike because he deserves it.
And I know what the law is. I know a person is not allowed to select their business clientele based on their personal beliefs. However, I support that being allowed. Are there no laws you disagree with, Porter? If you could re-write every federal statute and regulation, you would keep each of them as-is?
And the constitution is very very very far from being clear. That’s why it has been amended dozens of times and why it is constantly being interpreted differently by great scholars, politicians, and legal minds. Where in the constitution does it say a person is not allowed to run a business that infringes on the liberty of anyone? Oh, wait, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say anything close to that.
The fifth amendment addresses action by state / government authorities, not action by individuals. The fourteenth amendment, too. You are basing your whole argument on things that are absolutely not true. Idiot.
Reading the various arguments seems to suggest an important factor has been overlooked. Should our laws protect the right of an individual to intentionally harm others? Should the law protect a right of an individual to exclude a person of color from enjoying the same access to public accomodations as other folks enjoy.
I doubt that we can credibly deny that when the law protects a right to exclude and marginalize others, the people excluded are harmed in many ways. Such use of the law would enable communities to choose to exclude people of color from privately owned motels, restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, etc.
There are two choices: use the law to protect those who seek to exclude and marginalize minorities; or use the law the protect the right of minorities to fully participate in our society.
Just as the law is used to prevent private business owners from polluting or selling defective products because of the harm such action can cause individuals and society, it seems to make sense to use the law to prevent private business from taking action that intentionally harms individuals and society by denying people of color equal access to the goods and services available to everyone else.
Idiot? One at a time, then.
~ You know it’s against the law but you want the law to change. Then we both agree that you’re wrong but that you have an opinion.
~ Those two amendments address actions by the state against any entity except individuals who infringe upon the liberty of other individuals. i.e. You personally can stop an Indian from coming into your house but you as a business owner may not.
BTW … you really don’t want to get into an insult contest with me. Many have tried and all have gone home crying.
bear
Isn’t what Ryan is advocating some the same positions that states-rights groups used to argue against the Civil Rights laws.
Or, is Ryan promoting white supremacy?
Roger, I will let Ryan speak for himself. And I do think that is the old argument from so-called states rights groups.
My point is that we either use laws to prevent harm to others or use it to enable others to inflict harm. If a business owner tells a black man to leave because he doesn’t serve blacks, that is only the beginning of the story. If the black man hesitates the owner can call the police and have the man arrested and jailed. That would be an example of using the law to inflict harm. And that is exactly how the law worked in the pre-civil rights days.
I always appreciate when bcb throws his opinions into the mix. As I mentioned earlier, crimes against persons should stay illegal, so to an extent I believe we should have laws to prohibit an individual from intentionally harming others. I just don’t think the line should be quite where everyone else thinks it should be.
The law already allows us to harm each other in many ways. I could form a guys-only club and exclude women from our recreation. I could say mean things to children without legal consequences. I can publish in writing or online all sorts of hate-filled speech that may inflict harm on the audience. Being rude is legal because the real world is full of ugliness and pretending we can prevent it all is silly, so why bother?
So, when you say there are two choices, “use the law to protect those who seek to exclude and marginalize minorities; or use the law the protect the right of minorities to fully participate in our society” I would suggest that it isn’t a choice, but a combination of the two. There will always be people who don’t like other people for one reason or another. I don’t think we should pass laws and attempt to regulate personal interactions or private business interactions. If a person is willing to forgo profits from his or her business due to his or her personal opinions about a certain population, he should be allowed to trade his freedom of choice for the reputation of discrimination that freedom would create.
Actually, we do regulate both personal interactions and business interactions. Child abuse laws prevent adults from emotionally abusing children. Defamation laws seek to prevent people from publishing speech that harms others.
It seems there are two freedoms at issue: the freedom to participate equally in society regardless of race; and the freedom to deny that equal participation based on race. The law has to defend one or the other. So in my view, the argument for the business owner is not an argument for freedom, rather, it is an argument about which freedom should be protected by the law, since the two are indeed mutually exclusive.
Roger, I am doing nothing close to promoting white supremacy. I don’t think people with lighter skin are better or worse than people with darker skin. I think people who hate other people due to race, gender, ability / disability, or any other immutable characteristic are stupid people and I would not want anybody in my family or my circle of friends to treat people differently because of any such characteristic.
It seems like most of you simply have a problem with the fact that I would prefer fewer laws and more social control. Some of you think that means that I want certain people to be harmed. I don’t. I don’t want some poor immigrant family to have a hard time finding groceries, but I don’t think everything can or should be solved with laws. We have all sorts of laws now regarding equality and civil rights and you name it, yet we still have racism, sexism, nationalism, and all the related ism words.
I know people on this blog can be jumpy when they see a word or two they disagree with, so they often will miss the context of the comment. I support equality. I have nothing against any strangers, regardless of skin tone or genitals or anything else. I only dislike people who deserve it based on their actions. I just don’t think the government should have a say in every private business decision.
And Porter – If a person knows the law but believes the law should be changed, that person is “wrong” in your book? Alright, genius. Tell that to the founding fathers and to every person who had a had in the women’s suffrage movement and to all the brave people who fought to achieve equal rights under the law for all races of people when they believed the then-existing laws should change. Thank you for continuing to prove why you are usually ignored on this blog.
The reason for the difference between personal rights and business rights is thus …
~ As a USA citizen you hold the largest share any entity can hold in our country and it’s rights. You are a shareholder in America and no one can own a bigger share of our rights than you. Nobody gets more than one vote.
~ As a business you have no share in anything. You operate at the pleasure of we the people and we regulate you as our constitution and our votes determine. In short, no matter what Mitt Romney might think, corporations are not people. People can discriminate. Businesses can’t.
Ryan … You’re wrong because you’ve misinterpreted the Constitution and it’s ban on infringing.
bcb – child abuse laws prohibit SOME types of abuse against children. A parent’s discretion is a powerful thing in this country. I’m thinking of things like homeschooling by unqualified parents, anti-vaccine people, and religious nuts, but I’m sure there are many similarly-legal examples.
Defamation laws prohibit FALSE speech about another person or entity presented as fact. We are entitled to publish any sort of rude, crude, gross, racist, sexist, ugly stuff we want if we hold those opinions and feel like doing it. People do it every day.
Ultimately, you and I seem to agree that this conversation is about who’s freedom the law protects and who’s it infringes. It is simply impossible for the hypothetical cafe owner and the hypothetical unwanted customer to have equal rights and equal application of those rights. Since the rights of one side or the other must be infringed, I would support the infringement upon the customer’s. You would apparently rather infringe the cafe owner’s. I understand your points, I just disagree with the conclusion you came to about what the “right” result is. Thank you for your intelligent input, though.
@Roger … Have you ever known a white supremacist that didn’t deny it? Ryan, buddy. It’s up to us to judge you by what you say. Your opinion of yourself is invalid in the realm of accuracy.
Porter, you keep swinging and you keep missing.
Porter – judge away, buddy. As a reminder, though, you said you will judge me by what I say. So you actually have to pay attention. I don’t think you read very well, so go slow.
Don’t judge me based on what Roger said. Don’t judge me based on what you said. Don’t judge me based on what offends your daisy-fragile feelings. Judge me based on what I actually said. I’m comfortable with that. I expect that.
I think more people should be judged by what they say and do. That is all I have ever supported through my comments on this blog: personal accountability, autonomy, individual freedom, and equality.
You are free to disagree with me, of course, but if your own opinions are so delicate that you need to change and vilify mine to make yours feel right, you are weak.
Spoken like a true Jason, Miranda Lynn.
Applying personal accountability, autonomy, individual freedom, and equality to a business is invalid. Businesses have no rights. A business owner relinquishes his/her personal rights when he/she acts as the business.
“Applying personal accountability, autonomy, individual freedom, and equality to a business is invalid.” Invalid? What? Look words up before using them if you aren’t sure. Wrong.
“Businesses have no rights.” Yes they do. Wrong again.
“A business owner relinquishes his/her personal rights when he/she acts as the business.” No they don’t. Still wrong.
Are you a white fella, Porter? If so, we should use you and your constant wrongness as an example to show all those white supremacists that you apparently know how wrong they are about whites being supreme. Idiot.
Corporations are legal fictions, and in themselves they do not merit constitutional rights. https://law.stanford.edu/press/do-corporations-have-constitutional-rights/
Just yesterday a Black doctor was blocked from entering her gated community by wasicu wastey. She politely showed him her apartment and address and ID and he called the cops on her and said she was trespassing.
Then some Black sorority sisters were having a meal together when the owner called the cops to make sure they paid their bill before they were done eating.
Welcome to Ryan’s ideal ‘murrica.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/watch-racist-blocks-black-doctor-entering-gated-community-calls-cops
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/cleveland-restaurant-called-cops-black-sorority-members-make-sure-paid-food/
Ryan. There are people on this blog much smarter than you and me. They’ll explain this lesson to you.
Mike, neither of those examples you offered are about a business owner choosing their customers. They are about employees not doing the job they were hired to do.
Porter, I’m sure there are smarter people on this blog than me, but saying a business owner surrenders his or her rights when they operate a business is not correct. That’s different than a business not being granted the same constitutional protections as an individual.
Mike, neither of those examples you offered are about a business owner choosing their customers
Never said they were. They are both about whitey calling the cops on people because of skin color which is what your world will look like.
Mike, that’s not my ideal world at all. That is the current world, with all of our prohibitions against racism and discrimination. Lot of good those laws are doing, huh?
It’s almost as if you can’t legislate morality and virtue. You know, exactly what I’ve been saying.
It isn’t the law’s fault. It is that freaking racist in the WH and the racists that crawled out of the woodwork when Obama was elected. They have been let out of the bottle and may never be captured and isolated again. Racism is everywhere in America and it resides with white evangelicals. And people like you who think racism is okay and should be allowed.
“ANY Business has the right to refuse provide ANY product or service to ANYone for ANY reason. No one has the right to demand a product or service to be provided from any one else.”
While I completely agree with this statement, that doesn’t mean it’s worth following to the extreme. Refusing to do business with others of different ethnicity and/or races is a stupid, idiotic, and repulsive choice. Regular customers should find such decisions offensive, then protest by no longer conducting business with such entities. Odds are the free market will put the senseless clowns out of business.
@DarylRoot … White business owners get to “choose” whether they want to discriminate based on their future income? Preposterous and illegal. White business owners get to follow the law. All people are created equal.
When you open a business you have the opportunity to use all the things America provides. You get law enforcement, roads, contract dispute and fire department. But, you give up your individual freedom to act as a bigot and racist, when you’re doing business. It’s because … individually no one has more rights than any one else.
As a business (however) you must abide by the rights of EVERY American and every American is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Once you open a business you may not infringe on anyone’s rights, as you may as an individual. It’s the price you pay for the opportunity to do business in the safest, most economically advanced country in the world.
Daryl, I agree completely.
Mike, you are confusing the behavior I find acceptable and the laws I find meaningful. If racism and discrimination in a business environment was legal, I would still consider racists and bigots to be deplorable people. I just dont think the law should be the control for racism and bigotry.
Porter, you said the US is “the safest, most economically advanced country in the world.” Neither of those are accurate. Not even close, again.
I assume you’re microcriticising my post because you now agree with my explanation of why the law was enacted. It was the thinking of the majority of Americans and upheld by the Supreme Court. Smart of you to agree.
You in the minority, who believe a business should have the choice whether to discriminate or not are just that. The minority opinion.
If I go into one of Rep. Michael Clark’s friend that owns a restaurant and the owner expresses the same opinion as Rep. Clark that he doesn’t have to serve people of color and asks me to leave.
Clearly I’m Native American and willing to spend money at his establishment, but now I am humiliated and pissed off.
What are my options to file a complaint, the first option I would choose would be to file a Civil Rights complain through proper government channels and possibly end up with a cash settlement and the restaurant being fined for obvious racial discrimination.
Fortunately there are federal civil rights laws to protect my interest, racism in this context is not about ideologies or what we think the laws should be, they are the laws that we all live under.
And don’t forget that the restaurant owner will be saddled with perhaps years of legal costs, court costs, etc.
Yes porter, I agree that what I want the law to be and what the law currently is are different. You are having a one person argument. I know my beliefs are not shared by the majority of Americans. This wasn’t a conversation about what the law is or isn’t, it was about Clark’s thoughts on what the law should be and the fact that I agree with at least part of what he said.
Of course, Roger a bigot can simply say that he’s not serving you because you pose a safety threat to his business and other customers. You can’t prove that he’s just hating on you because of race. But, the truth is that bigotry and racism (like rape) is about power. The bigoted restaurant owner psychologically needs to tell you to your face that he’s superior. That’s more important to him than denying you service. That’s what the CO cake baker did and look what happened. He’s so far in debt he fully regrets the bigoted choice he made.
Porter said, “When you open a business you have the opportunity to use all the things America provides. You get law enforcement, roads, contract dispute and fire department. But, you give up your individual freedom to act as a bigot and racist, when you’re doing business.”
Really well put Porter.
If we get rid of laws requiring equal treatment, we go back to Jim Crow. Economics did not limit Jim Crow’s effectiveness. It would be nice if people really were all that good and decent, but in the real world, that’s not the case.
The Market or Basic Human Decency does not stop racist business owners from being racist or misogynist or religionist or homophobic, etc. That’s reality, as opposed to the pleasant and optimistic scenarios described by Ryan and Daryl.
Ryan or Jason or Miranda Lynn … I’m not arguing with you and Clark or the libertarian guy. I’m explaining to the other readers why what you think is wrong, why the law exists and why it’s only held by a small few.
Exactly, Deb. Even if Jim Crow had a majority approval, civil rights can’t be overruled. Civil rights are unchallengeable.
Stace, I read the Supreme Court’s cakeshop decision. Clark either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it. The justices said what Clark called for is unconstitutional. Clark doesn’t understand the Constitution or the law and is not qualified to execute the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. Clark should resign, or his party should show some moral courage and push him out.
http://www.newsweek.com/sarah-sanders-reportedly-thrown-out-virginia-restaurant-then-yelp-reviews-992762
This could get interesting in a hurry.
Nelson … I won’t stoop to name calling, as when you called me a “lonely vile racist creature with a life bereft of meaning”, yesterday. I do sympathize with you, however. Psychologists agree that adult name callers are often trying to repress a childhood memory where a male parent or Mother’s boyfriend was openly abusive. (It wasn’t your fault, big guy.)
But, I will share an anecdote my Pastor used during UCC confirmation classes in the 60’s.
Referring to your defense of Michael Clark’s racist and unconstitutional behavior … “Skunks smell great, to each other.”
Well, there ya go. Where does it end? Sarah, tossed. Krisin, shamed, Eichmann (Steve Miller) booted. Jim Crow is coming back with this ruling, only this time, it may be the whites that are hurt the most from this ruling. I am thinking that the concept for being an American is drifting from us here, and that is a damn shame.
Representative Clark truly seems like he is representing what a large segment of South Dakota actually feels like. The weird part of all that hate is that most of the population here is integrated with Native blood through marriage or family ties, just like they are with gays. Somewhere in the tree there is an interesting branch. Most of these haters don’t have to shake that tree to hard either.
Surprised the Drumpf Koyote Kerfluffle hasn’t winded this yet and set up a righteous howl.
I find it interesting that people who are claiming not to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., still support laws, or the absence of such, that enable racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., behaviors.
“Im not racist/sexist/homophobic, but I don’t think we should make racist/sexist/homophobic behaviors a crime.”
Looks like a big contradiction to me. I’m not buying it.
It looks like a contradiction to you, Debbo, or Mike, or Porter or whatever your name is, because you are focusing on one piece of the conversation and ignoring the others because it makes your opinion seem more righteous. I’ll try for a third time to say the same thing on this thread:
I do not think people should be racist or sexist. I do not think people should be judged or treated differently due to immutable characteristics. (By the way: can you folks ignore those last two sentences a few more times so I can repeat myself on here again and again while you pretend I’m racist?) I dislike most strangers equally, regardless of skin color or genitals or religious zeal.
I think these kinds of laws should not exist because I am generally a fan of fewer laws, especially fluff laws. There are many behaviors that I think are bad, ugly, immoral, unethical, or deplorable, but I do not think that means there should be a law against each of those things. Here are several examples:
I don’t think parents should feed their kids fast food every day, but they should be legally allowed to. I don’t think people should gamble away all of their disposable income, but they should be legally allowed to. I don’t think people should sign on for 100%-interest-short-term-loans, but they should be legally allowed to. I don’t think people at the grocery store should be rude, but I don’t think there should be a law punishing them for being rude. I simply disagree with the apparent opinion a lot of you have that we need a law to tell us what to do in every given situation.
There are a million more examples. It’s like all of you people think criminal or civil laws are the lines between right and wrong.
Besides, you should appreciate people like me, Debbo. If being sexist or racist was a crime, I have a feeling you would be doing hard time.