Chicago bar denies entry to black college students

[First]

I disagree. Many minds were changed which helped bring about changes in the law. Also, many minds did not change with the new laws, and some still haven't. You can't regulate ignorance nor hatred.

Your contention that ignorance/hatred can't be regulated seems curious; does this apply to the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution? Were they unsuccessful at regulating ignorance and hatred? Was it a coincidence that slavery magically disappeared after the 13th amendment passed?

 

[bamacre]

For one, your example isn't even logically consistent; a home isn't generally open to the public for business.

Bars do not have to be "open to the public."

And secondly, your standard would have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson and the separate but equal justification for segregation in private institutions. This is clearly unconstitutional. You'd think a self-described Libertarian would know what the Constitution actually says.

Actually, you're wrong here too. Because the Louisiana law in question acknowledged the color of one's skin.

 

[bamacre]

Your contention that ignorance/hatred can't be regulated seems curious; does this apply to the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution? Were they unsuccessful at regulating ignorance and hatred? Was it a coincidence that slavery magically disappeared after the 13th amendment passed?

The issue of legality of slavery goes way beyond ignorance and hatred. You cannot make nor enforce law that prevents people from being ignorant and hateful. A law banning slavery is much easier.

I think a better example to help support my belief above is that of homosexual marriage. Many minds have been changed without laws being passed.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's a public bar?

Um..yeah..its open to the public. Is that hard to grasp?

 

[Skitzer]

Owner should just turn it into a Biker Bar ....... problem solved.

 

[bamacre]

Um..yeah..its open to the public. Is that hard to grasp?

It's hard to grasp because it's not necessarily true, and it's the owner's discretion. Have you never seen a bar charge an entry fee?

 

[First]

Bars do not have to be "open to the public."

Bars are open to the public, by definition this is how they earn their money. Whether they charge fees or not does not change the fact that they earn their money based on public contributions, unless you can somehow show otherwise. And as such, your comparison to a private house is not at all comparable; as there's no expectation that people from the outside world have any rights when they enter that person's home, beyond being murdered. Murder being illegal on private property, btw, is another example of discrimination against a group of people (murderers) that you find reprehensible because it diminishes the principle of doing whatever you please on private property. So whether you know it or not, you agree with us that there should be clear limits on what private citizens can do on private property; murder in this case. That should absolutely extend to businesses that discriminate if, as the courts have upheld, a "badge of slavery" is being instituted in said cases (SCOTUS' word, not mine).

Besides, bars by law are required to get a state license anyway, so they fall under certain gov't guidelines. Most businesses do, and it makes plenty of sense to regulate what they do on their property up to a certain point, murder being an obvious limit on their freedoms, but also quite clearly the racism and prejudice your "principled" approach would allow.

Actually, you're wrong here too. Because the Louisiana law in question acknowledged the color of one's skin.

This response doesn't make any sense. It "acknowledged" the color of one's skin...OK, how's that change that they ruled separate but equal? Like I said, by your own definition your contention would allow, essentially, almost anything to occur on private soil and therefore would have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson. Can you deny this? Remember, be specific.

The issue of legality of slavery goes way beyond ignorance and hatred. You cannot make nor enforce law that prevents people from being ignorant and hateful. A law banning slavery is much easier.

I think a better example to help support my belief above is that of homosexual marriage. Many minds have been changed without laws being passed.

This is an interesting way of parsing words but doesn't do anything to address the actual issue at hand. Slavery is exactly the definition of ignorance and hatred. Slavery was legal in the U.S. until the 13th amendment, around 1865 at the end of the Civil War. Before then it was widely practiced in the South and in some areas of the North. It was completely and utterly destroyed and abolished after the 13th amendment; it wasn't actually practiced afterward (perhaps there were rare or isolated incidents, I can't be sure). This is a prime example of a law being passed that clearly was effective in abolishing slavery and therefore was absolutely successful in addressing ignorance and hatred. Now of course, it was merely transferred to sharecropping during Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws in the following decades, but without question a great stride was made in freeing black slaves by passing a law.

 

[First]

^ Now there is of course a lot to be said for Americans being ready for such laws; it's well known that the SCOTUS typically rules based on general public sentiment at the time. But what our founding fathers knew full well and what everyone knows today is that slavery was horribly morally reprehensible and wrong at the time, but that they would not have been able to form a constitution without it exactly because of public sentiment. Could the founding fathers taken a stand against slavery and simply formed a union without slave states? Perhaps with isolated pockets, certainly, and that would have been the principled approach. But they didn't take the absolute, most principled approach; they took the most practical approach, and compromised. Similarly, we must compromise some of the scared rights of private property by outlawing violations of someone else's rights on that property; like murder or racial prejudice. This doesn't extend to all property for obvious reasons (like a bar versus a house, for example, as they are quite obviously very different). But most.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...This is a prime example of a law being passed that clearly was effective in abolishing slavery and therefore was absolutely successful in addressing ignorance and hatred. Now of course, it was merely transferred to sharecropping during Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws in the following decades, but without question a great stride was made in freeing black slaves by passing a law.

In acknowledging the existence of Jim Crow laws and the segregated South, you refute your own argument. The abolition of slavery removed one aspect of the oppression blacks, but did absolutely nothing to address ignorance and hatred; if anything, abolition exacerbated the problem as lower-class whites increased the virulence of their attacks on blacks in a vain attempt to assert the "superiority" of their race.

 

[First]

In acknowledging the existence of Jim Crow laws and the segregated South, you refute your own argument. The abolition of slavery removed one aspect of the oppression blacks, but did absolutely nothing to address ignorance and hatred; if anything, abolition exacerbated the problem as lower-class whites increased the virulence of their attacks on blacks in a vain attempt to assert the "superiority" of their race.

So is Jim Crow not a far superior alternative to being a enslaved? I'd love to see the specifics of that justification, because clearly if Jim Crow is better than being enslaved (two terrible alternatives, I agree), then it's clear some ignorance and hatred was being suppressed and rejected successfully by freeing blacks from being owned by whites.

And generally, I'm not sure where your evidence exists for anything you just said; How exactly did whites increase the virulence of their attacks on blacks after the 13th amendment when it's a matter of public record that blacks had the same non-existent rights at private businesses before and after the 13th amendment? Blacks couldn't eat at the same restaurants or ride the same buses as whites before and after the 13th amendment; in fact, institutionalized racism clearly diminished after the 13th (and 14th) amendments (but not nearly enough, obviously), but whether they can be directly attributed to those amendments or not is up for debate, of course. Most historians you ask would say it's quite clear slavery had to be abolished. If you don't think we were able to regulate ignorance and hatred after the 13th and 14th amendments because some virulent ignorance and hatred existed after those amendments, then you're arguing with yourself. Because quite clearly you cannot regulate all ignorance and hatred. It's a strawman and an unattainable goal anyway.

 

[bamacre]

Bars are open to the public, by definition this is how they earn their money.

Uh, no. Mr. Economics.

Bars make money like anyone else, they have more money coming in than going out.

Your contention...

Whether they charge fees or not does not change the fact that they earn their money based on public contributions, unless you can somehow show otherwise.

... that they may charge for entering or membership shows this. The bottom line is that the owner can choose who and who not can enter and/or remain inside his bar, or on his private property.

And I would definitely NOT use the words "public contributions." Voluntary exchanges of money for services and/or products would be a MUCH better description.

And as such, your comparison to a private house is not at all comparable; as there's no expectation that people from the outside world have any rights when they enter that person's home, beyond being murdered. Murder being illegal on private property, btw, is another example of discrimination against a group of people (murderers) that you find reprehensible because it diminishes the principle of doing whatever you please on private property. So whether you know it or not, you agree with us that there should be clear limits on what private citizens can do on private property; murder in this case. That should absolutely extend to businesses that discriminate if, as the courts have upheld, a "badge of slavery" is being instituted in said cases (SCOTUS' word, not mine).

Straw man alert!

I NEVER said people have the right to do whatever they want on their own private property.

So, let's not put words in my mouth, ok?

Regardless, let's compare, since you brought it up. Because there is a huge and very relevant difference here. Murder is an infringement on someone's rights, their right to their life. Perhaps the most basic yet most important natural right. Yet, there is no right to be on another's private property. And thus denying someone the privilege of being on your property is not a denial of anyone's rights.

Besides, bars by law are required to get a state license anyway,

Yes, I have acknowledged this previously, and stated I was not referring to the law as it is, but to my personal point of view regarding property rights.

This response doesn't make any sense. It "acknowledged" the color of one's skin...OK, how's that change that they ruled separate but equal?

Because in order to make "separate but legal" law, and enforce it, government must acknowledge the color of one's skin. So, no my sentiment above would not condone nor support this.

This is an interesting way of parsing words but doesn't do anything to address the actual issue at hand. Slavery is exactly the definition of ignorance and hatred.

No, it's not. Sorry, but it's much worse than that. There are still ignorant and hateful people all over, and no law can change that. Next to murder, slavery is probably the worst infringement of one's natural rights. Your body is your property, you have to right to your own life, and to the fruits of your own labor.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I find the argument "it's a private bar" to be quite amusing. Let's replace private bar with private school. Can a private school bar applicants because of race? No. They could try, but they would lose their accreditation, which is granted by the government, and is based around them following certain prescribed guidelines, which includes non-discriminatory practices. A bar could also try, but they would lose their liquor license, which is granted by the government, and is based around them following certain prescribed guidelines, which includes non-discriminatory practices. The bar can take other steps, such as having a dress code that targeted clothing predominantly worn by blacks, but applied to everybody (the white kid with baggy pants and cornrows would be turned away too), because you're no longer discriminating based on a protected class (race), but on a non-protected behavior (style of clothing). The bar could also establish themselves as a private club and only serve "members" that could be chosen based on whatever criteria the bar wanted, as long as they didn't specifically state that it was based on race (even if it was generally understood to be, as long as it isn't specified there is no case).

As for comparing it to a home, just because an establishment is private, doesn't make it like a home. A bar earns its money through people from the general public entering and purchasing items (generally alcohol). While many bars enjoy regular customers, new patrons are typically welcomed with open arms, regardless of if they know anyone. That's nothing like a personal residence. It's a business. Compare it to a mom and pop store if you like, but not a home. It's forced, and it doesn't work, because while you can ban black people from entering your private home, the mom and pop store can't ban all black people from entering without facing a potential civil suit. Private residential is NOT the same as private commercial.

 

[werepossum]

If it's a privately owned business you can discriminate against anyone you choose - but not for the wrong reasons. You have no obligation to serve a particular black man, but you can't refuse to serve him because he is black. It's a dichotomy and it's messy, but it's also a pretty clear point of law, and if a white guy is admitted wearing the same jeans that cause a black man to be rejected, people are naturally going to think it's racism.

Not to defend the bar owner who probably is trying to keep out young black men to maintain a profit, but there is more than just the bagginess of the jeans. There is also how they are worn. I have seen many more black guys than white guys with jeans actually held up by one hand, completely exposing the buttocks. (Sadly, black women have not adopted this standard.) I'm not saying that happened here, just that it is possible. That said, while I have every sympathy with a bar owner who wants to stay in business, any dress policy simply must be posted, simple to understand, and enforced totally without prejudice. Otherwise people will naturally suspect you're an ass and will wish to cause you legal problems.

 

[Sadaiyappan]

Why didn't they just go to another bar?

 

[werepossum]

Why didn't they just go to another bar?

I'm assuming because their friends were there, but . . . Why should they have to?

 

[CallMeJoe]

So is Jim Crow not a far superior alternative to being a enslaved? I'd love to see the specifics of that justification, because clearly if Jim Crow is better than being enslaved (two terrible alternatives, I agree), then it's clear some ignorance and hatred was being suppressed and rejected successfully by freeing blacks from being owned by whites.

Jim Crow was preferable to slavery. So what? Abolition did nothing to eliminate racism. Abolition did nothing to eliminate the hatred against blacks or the ignorance of poor white trash.

And generally, I'm not sure where your evidence exists for anything you just said; How exactly did whites increase the virulence of their attacks on blacks after the 13th amendment when it's a matter of public record that blacks had the same non-existent rights at private businesses before and after the 13th amendment? Blacks couldn't eat at the same restaurants or ride the same buses as whites before and after the 13th amendment; in fact, institutionalized racism clearly diminished after the 13th (and 14th) amendments (but not nearly enough, obviously), but whether they can be directly attributed to those amendments or not is up for debate, of course.

De Jure racism diminished, but de facto racism did not. Blacks were free so long as they "knew their place". Ever hear of lynchings? What good is "freedom" if exercising that freedom gets you killed?

Most historians you ask would say it's quite clear slavery had to be abolished. If you don't think we were able to regulate ignorance and hatred after the 13th and 14th amendments because some virulent ignorance and hatred existed after those amendments, then you're arguing with yourself. Because quite clearly you cannot regulate all ignorance and hatred. It's a strawman and an unattainable goal anyway.

You're dealing with a serious case of cognitive dissonance, first stating you cannot regulate hatred and ignorance, then proclaiming that the passage of two Constitutional Amendments somehow negated hatred and ignorance.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Jim Crow was preferable to slavery. So what? Abolition did nothing to eliminate racism. Abolition did nothing to eliminate the hatred against blacks or the ignorance of poor white trash.

No, but it eliminated some of the most deplorable manifestations of racism, which is worthy enough in its own right. I would also contend that this lead to an acceleration of the progression away from racism.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I find the argument "it's a private bar" to be quite amusing. Let's replace private bar with private school. Can a private school bar applicants because of race? No. They could try, but they would lose their accreditation, which is granted by the government, and is based around them following certain prescribed guidelines, which includes non-discriminatory practices. A bar could also try, but they would lose their liquor license, which is granted by the government, and is based around them following certain prescribed guidelines, which includes non-discriminatory practices. The bar can take other steps, such as having a dress code that targeted clothing predominantly worn by blacks, but applied to everybody (the white kid with baggy pants and cornrows would be turned away too), because you're no longer discriminating based on a protected class (race), but on a non-protected behavior (style of clothing). The bar could also establish themselves as a private club and only serve "members" that could be chosen based on whatever criteria the bar wanted, as long as they didn't specifically state that it was based on race (even if it was generally understood to be, as long as it isn't specified there is no case).

As for comparing it to a home, just because an establishment is private, doesn't make it like a home. A bar earns its money through people from the general public entering and purchasing items (generally alcohol). While many bars enjoy regular customers, new patrons are typically welcomed with open arms, regardless of if they know anyone. That's nothing like a personal residence. It's a business. Compare it to a mom and pop store if you like, but not a home. It's forced, and it doesn't work, because while you can ban black people from entering your private home, the mom and pop store can't ban all black people from entering without facing a potential civil suit. Private residential is NOT the same as private commercial.

Well said. Glad to see that at least one person on here understands the law.

 

[First]

Uh, no. Mr. Economics.

Bars make money like anyone else, they have more money coming in than going out.

Your contention...



... that they may charge for entering or membership shows this. The bottom line is that the owner can choose who and who not can enter and/or remain inside his bar, or on his private property.

And I would definitely NOT use the words "public contributions." Voluntary exchanges of money for services and/or products would be a MUCH better description.

You still haven't addressed the distinction; explain how a house is not open to the public the same way a bar isn't open to the public. Explain the actual differences in detail and not in generalities. You'll have to explain why a bar operating with a state license, taking in money from the public, carries all the same rights as a private domicile that does not offer any sort of service to the public nor rely on the public to run their house. You made a bad analogy and need to move on, because you're merely dancing around the fact that a bar is open to the public and therefore carries different responsibilities than a home that by definition is not open to the public unless a business is being operating within its boundaries.

Straw man alert!

I NEVER said people have the right to do whatever they want on their own private property.

I never said you did. Read the whole paragraph.

So, let's not put words in my mouth, ok?

Regardless, let's compare, since you brought it up. Because there is a huge and very relevant difference here. Murder is an infringement on someone's rights, their right to their life. Perhaps the most basic yet most important natural right. Yet, there is no right to be on another's private property. And thus denying someone the privilege of being on your property is not a denial of anyone's rights.

Then how does this not open the door to separate but equal in Plessy and therefore racial discrimination? In your interpretation, someone doesn't have "a right" to be on someone else's property and therefore doesn't carry any rights...except the right not to be murdered because that right to life over-rides someone's private property rights, correct? But if you believe this, you also believe that someone must not be able to racially discriminate against someone else on the discriminator's private property because that right to equality over-rides that property owner's right to racially discriminate against them. If you agree with my previous two sentences in this paragraph, then your original statement that "A bar is private property, and the owner should be able to choose who is and isn't allowed on his property" has at least one qualifier when it comes to, for example, discriminating based on race, which you must see if quite different than discriminating based on looks or clothing.

You also seem to be confused with the difference between private businesses and private homes; both function entirely differently as their purpose and relationship with the state are subject to different laws. Private businesses fall under the Commerce Clause, private homes do not. This logical expansion of what the Commerce clause allows make perfect sense and is backed by precedent that we can go over.

Yes, I have acknowledged this previously, and stated I was not referring to the law as it is, but to my personal point of view regarding property rights.

Well, except that your POV does not offer any practical solutions as it ignores centuries-old laws. In this case, a state license to distribute alcohol. Why not address the law and actually argue the specifics of why, you believe, a bar operates no differently than a home and therefore should have the same rights? Because that statement is so far-reaching and general, with no legal precedent or legal theory to back it up, that it becomes a mostly useless statement.

Because in order to make "separate but legal" law, and enforce it, government must acknowledge the color of one's skin. So, no my sentiment above would not condone nor support this.

You merely repeated what you said before. How can you reconcile your statement of "A bar is private property, and the owner should be able to choose who is and isn't allowed on his property" and not come to the conclusion that this would allow people to racially discriminate? Perhaps you simply spoke too generally. But that's why you should always be careful with the words you use.

No, it's not. Sorry, but it's much worse than that. There are still ignorant and hateful people all over, and no law can change that. Next to murder, slavery is probably the worst infringement of one's natural rights. Your body is your property, you have to right to your own life, and to the fruits of your own labor.

Then you agree that we should curtail property owner's private property by restricting their ability to murder and racially discriminate, correct?

 

[First]

Jim Crow was preferable to slavery. So what? Abolition did nothing to eliminate racism. Abolition did nothing to eliminate the hatred against blacks or the ignorance of poor white trash.

The fact that you do not see the large leap forward that was the abolition of slavery speaks for itself. If you can't concede this obvious fact then there's no point in discussion. Hatred and ignorance still exists today, but should we therefore not bother passing laws? Quite clearly they work in symbiosis.

De Jure racism diminished, but de facto racism did not. Blacks were free so long as they "knew their place". Ever hear of lynchings? What good is "freedom" if exercising that freedom gets you killed?

I'm not sure you understand the leap forward here; blacks could not own property before the 13th amendment nor could they legally expect to have their rights protected from people that wanted to own them. After 1865 this changed for the better. It was, of course, nowhere near perfect, and we need the 14th amendment and all sorts of SCOTUS rulings to fully get past this 100 years later. This does not invalidate the notion that these amendments clearly helped to dissuade and discourage those who would want to enslave blacks or discriminate against blacks. Discrimination was of course still quite prevalent, especially in the South, but nowhere did anyone here say passing laws makes ignorance and hatred go away. It certainly helps to have the laws on the books, and is irrefutable.

You're dealing with a serious case of cognitive dissonance, first stating you cannot regulate hatred and ignorance, then proclaiming that the passage of two Constitutional Amendments somehow negated hatred and ignorance.

The fact that you didn't read or think critically is not of my concern, and you couldn't prove otherwise if your life depended on it as I'm sure your following posts will merely prove.

 

[First]

Bump for those with convenient amnesia.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Bump to remind everyone of my specious reasoning and poor comprehension:

Your contention that ignorance/hatred can't be regulated seems curious; does this apply to the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution? Were they unsuccessful at regulating ignorance and hatred? Was it a coincidence that slavery magically disappeared after the 13th amendment passed?

You still posit that the passage of two Constitutional Amendments ended racial hatred and ignorance in the United States, ignoring another century of the institutional and cultural oppression of blacks?
The passage of those amendments was admirable, but would have served the former slaves far better had the federal government not ceded the former slaves to the gentle ministrations of the Klan as soon as it was politically expedient to withdraw Union troops from the not-quite-Reconstructed South.
It took the efforts of millions of black Americans with the support of the now-maligned Liberals of the '60s to complete the liberation begun by the Lincoln administration but almost immediately abandoned by his successors.

I'm guessing from the naivete of your postings in this thread that you did not experience the unenlightened Dixie of the 50s and 60s; as a resident of "Bombingham" during the reign of Governor Wallace and the glory days of Bull Connor, I have a rather more immediate perspective on the subject.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Bars are not "open to the public". Lets dispel this farce of a notion.

Bars are not public property they are private establishments open to the "paying public". If you don't buy a drink or pay any cover charge they require to get into their establishment, etc then they have the right to kick you out no questions asked or refuse you service out right. They also have a right to remove or ban you from their premises you if you start a fight, act rude or if they think you are too ugly to fit with the bar scene they are catering too. If a bar owner or bar staff allows an individual to hang out at a bar without buying drinks, food, etc they do so at their lenient discretion.

This isn't a communist or socialist nation (Not yet anyhow but give Obama and the dems some time) so property owners and business people still have the right to determine the policies for their businesses and who they will or will not do business with baring any outright blatant violations of the law.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Bars are not "open to the public". Lets dispel this farce of a notion.
Bars are not public property they are private establishments open to the "paying public"...

You need to do some research on the concept of "Public Accommodation" and its application in civil rights legislation.

 

[werepossum]

Bars are not "open to the public". Lets dispel this farce of a notion.

Bars are not public property they are private establishments open to the "paying public". If you don't buy a drink or pay any cover charge they require to get into their establishment, etc then they have the right to kick you out no questions asked or refuse you service out right. They also have a right to remove or ban you from their premises you if you start a fight, act rude or if they think you are too ugly to fit with the bar scene they are catering too. If a bar owner or bar staff allows an individual to hang out at a bar without buying drinks, food, etc they do so at their lenient discretion.

This isn't a communist or socialist nation (Not yet anyhow but give Obama and the dems some time) so property owners and business people still have the right to determine the policies for their businesses and who they will or will not do business with baring any outright blatant violations of the law.

Businesses have quite a lot of leeway in whom they serve, but not unlimited leeway. Refusing to serve black people will still get you in trouble. Not to mention if most white people find out a business won't serve blacks, they too won't patronize it, and the white customers it does get will be, um, somewhat less than the elite they might hope for.

If the bar owner wants to keep out blacks he should play country and western music. Not a lot of brothers gonna sit through that, and none whose pants have to be held up with one hand. Problem is if there's a fire, all those huge belt buckles can't fit through the fire exits very quickly, and those big puffy Texas hair-dos burn real nice.