We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

Not according to the law. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the supreme court.

That's my point. The laws are fascist and violate property rights.

Kelo vs New London. The Supreme Court doesn't believe in property rights.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I could personally never serve an obviously pregnant lady alcohol.

I would draw the line right there as well.
Somebody has to be the defendant that overturns precedent.

Stare Decisis my friend...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs
Take it up with the supreme court.

Apparantly they don't agree with you. Hmmm... supreme court justice vs. aspiring bartender. Yeah, you'll show them.

You do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want to do with or on your property. Nor should you. I'm not a fascist, I'm a realist.

I don't know if a case has ever been brought up with the supreme court. Obviously you can't use your property to do "whatever you want". But apparently having the authority to decide who can be on your property is too much to ask.

No, it is not too much to ask. Only if you open your property to the public are you prohibited from discriminating on the basis of membership in a protected class. I can kick you off my private property for any reason I want, because I don't open my property to the public.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

Not according to the law. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the supreme court.

That's my point. The laws are fascist and violate property rights.

Kelo vs New London. The Supreme Court doesn't believe in property rights.

As much as I think that ruling is a load of BS, I can see why the supreme court ruled that way. They have to intepret the constitution the way it's written, not the way they think it should have been written. The problem is that the consitution does not adequately define how eminent domain can be used. We need a constitutional amendment to fix that (many states are already passing amendments to their own constitutions).

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs


No, it is not too much to ask. Only if you open your property to the public are you prohibited from discriminating on the basis of membership in a protected class. I can kick you off my private property for any reason I want, because I don't open my property to the public.

Well it's really sad that the laws are that way. I believe in property rights. We can't have this hypocrisy. If customers have the right to choose their business, then businesses should have the right to choose their customers. What a double-standard. What a wedge in capitalism. What an infringement on our rights. What a blow to the free markets.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

Not according to the law. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the supreme court.

That's my point. The laws are fascist and violate property rights.

Kelo vs New London. The Supreme Court doesn't believe in property rights.

As much as I think that ruling is a load of BS, I can see why the supreme court ruled that way. They have to intepret the constitution the way it's written, not the way they think it should have been written. The problem is that the consitution does not adequately define how eminent domain can be used. We need a constitutional amendment to fix that (many states are already passing amendments to their own constitutions).

well depends on how broad you read the amendment. it says "'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". they are just reading the "public" part very broad.

I do not think the founders ever intended that private land be taken and be given to other private (company's or people). i agree they need a amendment to fix this. many states are doing it themselves but not closing every loophole. many areas they can still condemn the property and take it.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99
In health class, my teacher showed a video that the bartender was blamed for serving a overly drunk customer more alcohol. It was a 60 minutes epidsode. The drunk left, got into a car, and hit another car with 6 people in it, killing everyone.

Yup, that's the kind of society we live in. Maybe if our DUI laws weren't so fascist, the cops would be out looking for the REAL drunk drivers that are seriously drunk and in danger of killing somebody instead of social drinkers who have had a few beers. Thank you MADD for making our roads less safe.

How the hell do you differentiate between the two? I'm sorry, but any drunk driver off the road is a good thing to me. Sounds like you or someone you know just happened to be the one to get caught and you're crying about it. If you break the law, you're doing something illegal, regardless of if you're a social or habitual drinker. Don't endanger my life cuz you're a fvcking selfish moron.

Edit: On a side note though, I agree with your OP. That's ridiculous.

 

[imported_Baloo]

This right still exist, and you can think all you want. What you can't do is illegally discriminate. Generally, this right is reserved for unruly people, not people the server has a bias against, as in the OP's example.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Here is the thing...

if you DONT serve a pregnant woman ... she will sue for discrimination.

if you DO serve a pregnant woman and something goes wrong with the baby... she will sue for serving her.

my thoughts exactly. to prevent lawsuits, it is best to just never interact with any person, place, or object. but don't try to kill yourself, because if you fail, they'll sue you for SOMETHING.